踢出群成员

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

The description discloses the destructive nature by saying the member is removed from the group and adds the authorization requirement, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention the optional reject_add_request behavior, but that is already documented in the schema; no contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the action and the key prerequisite with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the permission requirement is stated immediately after.

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 destructive group-action tool with fully described parameters and clear annotations, the description is largely complete. It could have mentioned what happens on failure or how reject_add_request affects the member's ability to rejoin, but the schema already covers the latter.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document group_id, user_id, and reject_add_request. The tool description itself adds little beyond '指定成员', so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('移出群聊' / kick) and names the resource ('指定成员' in a group), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_group_ban or set_group_leave. An agent can immediately tell this is about removing a member, not muting, renaming, or leaving.

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 gives clear context by stating the action and a prerequisite: the bot must be in the group and have admin permissions. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as set_group_ban, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.

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