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 and does disclose the two most important traits: it mutates the target's state and cannot be undone. It omits prerequisites that matter a lot here — e.g. that the bot must be an admin/owner and cannot kick the owner — so the destructive profile is only partly covered.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the destructive consequence second. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and its irreversibility but leaves out permission prerequisites and side effects (e.g. whether the user can re-join, which partly overlaps with reject_add_request). 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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema (including the useful hint to source group_id from get_group_list). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 — '把成员踢出群' (kick a member out of the group) — which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby sibling set_group_ban, which is also a member-level punitive action; the agent gets no cue about which one to pick.

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 offers no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. For a tool sitting next to set_group_ban, set_group_leave, and set_group_admin, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap, though the 'irreversible' note implicitly warns that this is the permanent option.

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