unbanChatMember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the non-obvious post-condition (user will not automatically return), the admin prerequisite, and the success return value. It does not cover failure cases, but the key behavioral details are present.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, scope, behavioral consequence, prerequisite, and return value with no redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers action, scope, prerequisite, key behavior, and return value. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not address error scenarios or differentiate from unbanChatSenderChat, but the core calling context is sufficiently complete.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the optional only_if_banned flag. The description adds no parameter-specific nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Unban'), a precise object ('previously banned user'), and the applicable scope ('supergroup or channel'). It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like banChatMember or unbanChatSenderChat based on this wording.

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 relevant context: the bot must be an administrator and the user will not return automatically. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when to use this tool instead of related tools like unbanChatSenderChat, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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