Restrict a user with a custom rights mask

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral detail by defining the polarity of the boolean fields, but it does not disclose other significant behaviors such as whether restrictions are reversible, whether they replace or merge with existing restrictions, or what permissions are required. This is adequate but not rich.

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 brief sentences that immediately convey the purpose and the critical field semantics. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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's complexity (nested rights object, 14 boolean fields, destructive annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits usage guidance, parameter explanations for `peer`/`user`/`accountId`, and behavioral context like whether restrictions stack or reset. This could lead to incorrect invocation in an autonomous agent.

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 description clarifies that all boolean fields in `rights` mean 'cannot do that action', which is essential because the schema has zero descriptions for these fields. However, it does not explain `peer`, `user`, or `accountId`, leaving their meaning to be inferred from names. The nested `rights` object is well served, but other parameters remain underdocumented.

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 tool's function ('Set specific restrictions') and explains the key semantics of the rights mask (true means the user CANNOT perform the action). It differentiates from simple ban/kick by focusing on a custom rights mask, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 sibling tools like ban_user, kick_participant, or promote_admin. There are no stated prerequisites (e.g., admin rights) or context for when a custom rights mask is appropriate, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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