kick_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what 'kick' entails (e.g., temporary removal vs. permanent ban, notification to the member, audit log entry, or whether the member can rejoin). For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what the kick action does behaviorally, potential side effects, required permissions, or what the return value might be (e.g., success confirmation or error). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('userId' and 'reason') adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, which aligns with the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Expulse' meaning kick/expel) and the resource ('un membre du serveur' meaning a server member), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ban_member' or 'timeout_member', which would require 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ban_member', 'timeout_member', or 'remove_role_from_member'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as required permissions or appropriate contexts for kicking a member.

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