set_group_kick

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Kick member from group' does not mention side effects, permissions, irreversibility, or the meaning of the optional reject_add_request parameter, so the agent is under-informed about a mutating operation.

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 exceptionally concise: four words, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. There is no wasted text.

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 very simple mutation with complete parameter documentation, the one-liner may be minimally sufficient. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of the reject_add_request side effect, the context is thinner than ideal for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, and the optional reject_add_request behavior is only present in the schema, not enriched in the tool description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Kick member from group'. This clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from related sibling tools like set_group_ban or set_group_leave, even though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action; it does not explain, for example, that kicking removes a member permanently while set_group_ban mutes them temporarily.

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