conversations_kick

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but fails to mention potential destructive effects, permission requirements, or that the user must be a member of the conversation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. While it lacks additional structure, it is not verbose. It could be slightly improved by adding one more sentence for context, but it remains effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a removal action with two required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description should still inform about permissions, side effects, or typical response. It lacks this context, making it incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its parameters ('channel' and 'user'), and the description adds no semantic context about what these parameters represent (e.g., IDs vs. names). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Remove a user from a conversation' uses a clear verb 'remove' and specifies the resource 'user from a conversation'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like conversations_leave (self-removal) and conversations_invite (adding users).

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like conversations_leave or conversations_kick compared to other tooling, nor does it mention prerequisites like administrative permissions.

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