kick_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without explaining consequences (e.g., whether the client is notified, if the kick is reversible, or any permission requirements).

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 sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, it could be better structured by front-loading key information or using bullet points for clarity, though it is not overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and exists alongside similar tools like ban_client, the description fails to explain distinctions (e.g., temporary vs permanent), post-kick behavior, or restrictions (e.g., cannot kick self). It is insufficient for full context.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning, mainly implying the scope via 'from server or channel', but does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Kick') and the resource ('client'), and specifies the two scopes ('from server or channel'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like ban_client or move_client.

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 over alternatives (e.g., ban_client), no prerequisites, and no context on when to set the 'from_server' parameter. The default reason is given but not contextualized.

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