kick_member

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a destructive removal and adds a confirmation requirement, but says nothing about whether the kicked user can rejoin, what permissions the caller needs, whether the action is reversible, or what the reason field does. For an unannotated destructive mutation this is a substantial 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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the safety instruction second — structurally sound and free of padding. The brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficient concision, and the text contains mojibake ('usuário') that slightly degrades readability.

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, unannotated, three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should explain consequences, permissions, and parameter meaning. It covers only the action and a confirmation step, leaving most of what an agent needs to call it safely unstated.

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% across three parameters. The word 'membro' loosely implies user_id, but guild_id and reason are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess at identifier formats and the purpose of the optional reason.

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 verb and resource ('EXPULSA um membro' / kicks a member), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely related siblings ban_member, timeout_member, or unban_member, so an agent must infer the difference from the tool name alone.

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?

It gives one concrete procedural instruction — confirm with the user before executing — which is genuinely useful for a destructive action. It offers no guidance on when to kick versus ban or timeout, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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