set_group_kick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the required authorization level and the side effect that reject_add_request can block future join requests, but says nothing about reversibility, failure behavior, or return format. Partial but meaningful disclosure.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the primary action and permission requirement come first, followed by parameter notes. The param lines duplicate the schema, which is slightly redundant but not wasteful enough to hurt much.

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 mutating, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the permission requirement, and one side effect. It is adequate but leaves gaps around failure modes and any output/confirmation, so it is complete only at a minimum-viable level.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates group_id, user_id, and reject_add_request, adding no syntax, constraints, or format detail beyond the structured fields. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: remove a designated member from a group chat (kick). The action is unambiguous and distinguishable from set_group_leave (self-leave) by its member-targeting semantics. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 prerequisite (requires admin or group-owner permissions), which implies when the call is valid, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-avoid guidance and names no alternative (e.g., set_group_ban for temporary removal). Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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