remove_channel_moderator

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 simply states 'Revokes moderator status' without explaining side effects, such as whether the user remains in the channel, whether the action is reversible, or what happens if the user is not currently a moderator. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation, as the agent is left without knowledge of the broader behavioral consequences.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the core action without any fluff or repetition. It is efficient and front-loaded, stating the verb and object immediately, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two well-described parameters, but the absence of annotations and an output schema raises the burden on the description. The current description is minimally adequate but lacks important contextual details, such as clarifying that this action only removes the moderator role and does not remove the user from the channel, or any note about permission requirements or error conditions. These gaps leave room for ambiguity in decision-making.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'User ID to remove moderator status from' and 'Channel ID'. The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Revokes' and clearly identifies the resource as 'moderator status' in a channel. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_channel_moderator' (which grants moderation) and 'remove_user_from_channel' (which removes the user entirely), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the appropriate tool when you want to strip moderation privileges without removing the user from the channel, nor does it reference related sibling tools like 'add_channel_moderator' or 'remove_user_from_channel'. This lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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