tg_moderate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that kicking and banning are visible to the whole chat, clarifies that approve/decline answer pending join requests, and notes the admin requirement. This gives a solid understanding of side effects and preconditions.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, followed by functional details and a caution. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

It covers the tool's purpose, admin-only condition, visible side effects, and the meaning of approve/decline. With an output schema present, return values are already specified. Minor omission: no explicit mention of identifier formats for chat/user, though the names are self-explanatory.

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 adds the list of valid action values (kick, ban, unban, promote, demote, approve, decline), which is absent from the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it does not explain acceptable formats for chat/user identifiers or any constraints, leaving a partial gap.

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 verb+resource ('Moderate a group member') and enumerates specific actions (kick, ban, unban, promote, demote, approve, decline). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_block or tg_message, which have different scopes.

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 explicitly states 'Only for chats where the user is an admin' and advises to 'Confirm before using', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the conditions are specific enough for an agent to decide.

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