Кікнути гравця

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state the concrete effect (disconnecting the player) and that the reason is shown to the player. It does not mention consequences like rejoin ability, permission requirements, or expected errors/response.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action, includes the command hint, and adds no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple tool with three parameters, the main action and parameters are covered. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not state return/error behavior or prerequisites like the player needing to be online.

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 33%, but the description compensates by explaining that 'player' is the target and 'reason' is an optional message shown to the kicked player. 'timeout_ms' is already documented in the schema, so all parameters can be understood.

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, 'відключає' (disconnects), names the resource ('гравця' / player), and mentions the optional reason. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as mc_teleport or mc_say.

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?

Usage is implied by the kick semantics: use it to disconnect a player. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over mc_command or whether the player must be online, so alternatives and exclusions are not stated.

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