set_group_kick

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the key behavioral fact that admin or owner permission is required. It does not state whether the kick is reversible, what happens on failure, or whether reject_add_request permanently blacklists the user, which leaves meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the text is short. But the trailing :param block duplicates the schema descriptions word-for-word, so several lines do not earn their place beyond restating structured data.

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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (action, permission requirement, params). It omits failure behavior and the permanence implication of the blacklist flag, so it is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with the same text the description repeats verbatim. The description adds no syntax, format, or default semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('将指定成员移出群聊'), names the underlying OneBot 11 action (set_group_kick), and identifies the acting resource (a group). An agent can tell this apart from read/listing siblings without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with set_group_ban or set_group_leave.

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 states a real prerequisite ('需具备管理员或群主权限'), which is useful operational guidance. However it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never contrasts with close siblings like set_group_ban (temporary mute) or set_group_leave, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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