Kick / ban / unban a member

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context that history is preserved and explains ban vs unban reversibility. It omits the admin/permission requirement and any rate-limit or destructive-side-effect detail, so it is decent but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The only minor flaw is the misleading 'kick=true' clause embedded in otherwise efficient prose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of destructive behavior, the description covers the ban/unban semantics and history retention but omits permission requirements, self-kick restrictions, and confirmation/irreversibility details. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: 'unban' is explained, but the description references a 'kick=true' parameter that does not exist in the schema, which will confuse an agent. 'chat' and 'user' are left to name inference alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a member from a group or channel,' which is clearly distinct from self-oriented siblings like telegram_leave_chat. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from other member-management tools such as telegram_block_user or telegram_promote_admin, keeping it at a 4.

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?

It clarifies the ban/unban choice in-line ('kick=true bans them (default), unban=true lifts the ban so they may rejoin'), which implies usage. However it never states when to prefer this over telegram_block_user or telegram_leave_chat, nor any prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.

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