unban_member

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and parameter details, omitting any side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the user is not banned (e.g., error handling).

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 very concise: a single sentence followed by a parameter list. Every element serves a purpose and is front-loaded with the action.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks usage guidance but is largely sufficient for a straightforward unban operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add value. It explains that chat_id defaults to a placeholder (TELEGRAM_CHAT_ID) if omitted, which is not clear from the schema alone. However, for user_id, it merely restates the schema property name.

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 'Unban a user from a chat.' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ban_member' by indicating the reverse action.

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 the tool is used to reverse a ban, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'ban_member' or other moderation tools. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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