ban_chat_user

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions temporary vs permanent but omits consequences (e.g., whether existing messages are removed), reversibility, and any side effects. Important context like 'this will prevent the user from sending messages but they can still view' is missing.

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?

Single sentence, 14 words, immediately communicates core action and the key conditional. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could expand slightly without losing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It covers only the duration distinction and does not address parameter details, return values, or usage context. The agent lacks enough information to invoke correctly.

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 compensate. It explains duration_seconds (determines temporary/permanent) but does not clarify chat_id, channel_id, or dry_run. dry_run's effect (e.g., whether it simulates without banning) is unclear.

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 (ban a user) and resource (live chat), with a condition (temporary when duration_seconds given, else permanent). It is specific and goes beyond the tool name, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling moderation 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_chat_message or mark_spam. Description does not mention prerequisites, such as required permissions or whether the user must be currently active.

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