tg_moderate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: admin permission is required, actions are visible to the entire chat, and approve/decline answer pending join requests. No contradiction with 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?

Three tight sentences: the first front-loads the verb, resource, and action list; the second clarifies join-request behavior; the third covers permission and visibility. Every sentence carries necessary information and there is no padding.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description covers the essential operational context: the complete action vocabulary, the admin requirement, and a visible side-effect warning. It lacks explicit chat/user identifier formats and return-value information, but these are relatively minor given the clarity of the action model and the annotations.

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 coverage is 0%: chat, user, and action are bare strings with no descriptions or enums. The description compensates partially by listing valid action values and explaining two of them, but it never defines what chat or user should contain (ID, username, display name) or their formats. Meaningful but incomplete parameter guidance.

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 specific verb and resource ('Moderate a group member') and immediately enumerates the full action set: kick, ban, unban, promote, demote, approve, decline. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tg_block, tg_delete, and tg_leave, and the extra sentence explaining approve/decline removes ambiguity about join-request handling.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Only for chats where the user is an admin') and a practical usage caution ('Confirm before using — kicking and banning are visible to the whole chat'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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