kick_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'reject_add_request' parameter's meaning but does not explain side effects, permissions, or what happens after kicking. This is insufficient for a mutating 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 very short and structured with an Args section, which is concise. However, it is in Chinese, which may hinder non-Chinese agents. The brevity is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the scope of the action (e.g., permanent removal). More context is needed for safe usage.

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, so the description adds meaningful explanations for all three parameters in Chinese, clarifying their roles. However, the explanations are minimal (e.g., 'group_id: group number').

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 clearly states the action 'kick group member' and lists the parameters, which makes the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'mute_member' or 'recall_message', leaving some ambiguity in context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. It only lists parameters without any usage context.

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