discord_kick_member

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: kicked users may rejoin via invite, permission and role-hierarchy constraints exist, and the reason is recorded in the audit log. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs.

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?

Four sentences with no filler: action first, then the ban distinction, then requirements, then the alternative tool. Every sentence carries useful information and is structured for quick agent parsing.

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 outcome, reversibility, permission requirements, role hierarchy, audit-log behavior, and the alternative tool. For a destructive member-management action with 3 well-documented parameters, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so guild_id, user_id, and reason are already fully documented in the input schema. The description only restates that the reason is recorded in the audit log, which the schema already says, so it adds no new parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific action, 'Remove a member from the server', and immediately distinguishes itself from a ban by noting the member can rejoin with a new invite. It names the sibling discord_ban_member, so an agent can clearly separate this tool from related member-removal tools.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool, discord_ban_member, for blocking re-entry, which tells the agent when not to pick kick. It also gives concrete prerequisites: the Kick Members permission and the bot's top role being higher than the target's.

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