client_kick

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 implies a destructive action ('Kick') but does not cover permissions required, whether the kick is reversible, what happens to the client, or the effect on other users. This is a significant gap for a moderation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and scope without any wasted words.

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 moderation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and destructive implications, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical behavioral context such as required permissions, consequences of kicking, and differentiation from related tools like client_ban.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, which already documents client_id, reason, and from_server with defaults and meanings.

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 states a specific verb ('Kick') and resource ('a client') with scope ('from the server or current channel'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like client_ban and client_poke. An agent can immediately understand the tool's action without ambiguity.

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 implies usage by specifying the optional scope (server vs. channel), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like client_ban or client_move. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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