ban_chat_sender_chat

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the specific effect (restricting sending messages) but does not disclose additional behavioral context such as reversibility, side effects, or required permissions. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single concise sentence that conveys the core action without any redundant words or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple, but the description omits important context such as the meaning of sender_chat_id, return value, and error cases. The presence of annotations helps, but the lack of a full parameter description and no output schema leave gaps in completeness.

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 only 50%: chat_id has a description ('Chat ID or @username') but sender_chat_id has none. The tool description provides no additional parameter semantics, leaving the purpose of sender_chat_id unexplained and not compensating for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'ban' and clearly identifies the resource ('channel chat') and context ('in a supergroup'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ban_chat_member' (which bans users) and 'unban_chat_sender_chat' (the inverse operation).

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 implies usage for channel chats in supergroups but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ban_chat_member' or when to use the inverse 'unban_chat_sender_chat'. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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