remove_participant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does flag the action as DESTRUCTIVE and states the confirm=true requirement, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to the removed user's access beyond the immediate removal.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately surfaces the critical destructive confirm requirement, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 destructive action with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain what success or failure looks like, does not clarify chat_id/user_id formats, and does not mention permissions or consequences beyond the basic removal. The confirm requirement is helpful, but more context is needed for a destructive tool.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate for chat_id and user_id being undocumented in both the schema and the description. The confirm parameter is well explained in the schema, but the two core identifiers remain ambiguous in semantics, especially since both accept integer or string.

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 ('Remove a user') and target resource ('group or channel'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like leave_chat, delete_chat, and block_user because it uniquely targets removing another user from a chat.

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 when to use the tool: when a participant must be removed from a group or channel. It also communicates a critical usage requirement ('requires confirm=true'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as preferring block_user for global blocking or leave_chat for removing oneself.

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