ban_chat_member

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

The description discloses that in supergroups/channels the ban is permanent until unbanned, adding context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It doesn't cover permission requirements or message revocation behavior, but annotations already signal destructiveness.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and one behavioral consequence, but lacks essential details about the until_date and revoke_messages parameters and the required admin permissions. Given the absence of an output schema and moderate parameter count, it's adequate but incomplete.

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?

The description provides no parameter semantics. The schema describes chat_id and user_id, but until_date and revoke_messages are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving ambiguity about temporary bans and message revocation.

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 'Ban a user from a chat' with a specific verb and resource, and adds a concrete behavioral nuance about supergroups/channels. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like restrict_chat_member or unban_chat_member.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that unban_chat_member reverses it or that restrict_chat_member could be used for temporary restrictions. Only a context note about supergroups is provided, not explicit usage directions.

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