Ban a user from a channel/supergroup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, so the agent knows it is destructive. The description adds useful context about untilDate time-limiting and the default being forever, but it does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on existing messages.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Every word 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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and only one parameter explained, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on how to specify the user (e.g., username vs ID), required admin permissions, and what happens to the user's messages or membership.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only explains untilDate (unix seconds, default forever), while peer, user, and accountId are left undefined, leaving the agent to guess their meaning or format.

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 'Fully ban a user' with a specific verb and resource, and the title clarifies 'from a channel/supergroup'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like restrict_user, kick_participant, and block_user, making the purpose clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as restrict_user, kick_participant, or block_user. The description only states what it does, not in which situations it should be chosen.

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