player_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, and it only says 'Kick a player from the server.' It fails to disclose that the kick is reversible (the player can reconnect), whether server operator privileges are required, whether the server must be running, or what effect it has on the player's active session. For a mutating server-management action with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 text is a single short sentence with no wasted words and the core verb is front-loaded. The structure itself is efficient; the weakness lies in under-specification rather than excessive or disorganized prose, so conciseness is decent even though content is thin.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should supply substantially more. It omits whether the server must be active, the temporary nature of the action, and the role of the reason parameter. An agent has just enough to guess the operation but not enough to call it confidently in varied server states.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters, but it adds nothing about 'player' or 'reason.' The names are mildly self-evident, yet the description provides no clarification of what 'player' accepts (username or UUID) or how 'reason' is surfaced to the kicked player. Since it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema properties, this dimension is poorly served.

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 action (kick) applied to a resource (player on the server), giving a clear sense of what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from the closely related sibling player_ban — both remove a player, and there's no mention that kick is temporary while ban is persistent. The name and description together make the core action clear, but sibling disambiguation is left entirely to inference.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like player_ban and player_pardon exist, but the description never explains that kick is transient (player may rejoin) or that ban is the persistent removal option. There's also no mention of prerequisites, such as the server being online or operator permissions being required.

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