members_kick

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds concrete behavioral consequences: 'they lose roles and must rejoin.' It also discloses the security gating requirement (ConfrimRequired) and the exact conditions needed to perform the kick (__confirm:true with MCP_DRY_RUN=false), which goes well beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with clear Markdown headers, front-loaded purpose, and each section serves a distinct function. It is concise yet comprehensive, covering purpose, usage, returns, and security in a scannable format.

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 destructive mutation tool, the description covers all essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, when not to use it, what it returns, and the security gate required to execute. The schema and annotations cover the remaining parameter and safety details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter adequately. The description reinforces the __confirm parameter's role in the destructive operation but does not add significant new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Kick (remove) a member from a guild.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling members_ban by explicitly stating the kick is non-permanent and does not ban, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It directs users to members_ban for permanent bans, giving clear guidance on selecting this tool over a closely related alternative.

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