restrict_participant

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It explains boolean defaults (False = disallowed) and the 'until' parameter for time-limited restrictions. However, it omits prerequisites (bot admin rights) and potential side effects (e.g., if user is an admin). Mentions of permissions are clear but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: a short intro followed by a bullet-style list. It avoids redundancy, and the critical info (purpose, parameters) is front-loaded. Could be slightly more compact but is effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 11 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (so return values not needed), the description covers the main behavioral aspects. It explains all boolean flags and the 'until' field, but lacks error handling or constraints (e.g., user must be in chat). Overall, adequate for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description compensates by detailing each boolean parameter: e.g., 'send_messages: 允许发消息（False 即禁言）'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though some parameters like 'chat' and 'user' are not explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '限制某个成员的权限（禁言等）' which translates to 'restrict a member's permissions (mute, etc.)'. It lists specific permissions (send_messages, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kick_participant and ban_participant that remove or ban members instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for permission restriction without removal, but does not compare to kick or ban. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.