kick_member

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states 'kick a member' without noting that the member can rejoin, that permissions may be required, or that the action is reversible. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves important behavioral traits unstated.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but not proportional to the information needed. It front-loads the core action but omits essential context, making it too terse rather than appropriately sized.

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 the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values (though an output schema exists), prerequisites, or the difference from ban/timeout. For a simple tool it still leaves critical gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters (user_id, reason, guild_id). It provides no additional meaning beyond the bare parameter names in the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action (kick) and the resource (member), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ban_member or timeout_member, so it misses the distinction that would earn a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that kick is temporary while ban is permanent, or when a timeout might be preferred. Without explicit usage context, an agent cannot make an informed choice.

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