kick_participant

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context that the destructive action is reversible (the participant can return), which is not disclosed by annotations alone. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Kick') and includes an important qualifier. However, it is somewhat under-specified, which slightly reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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?

The tool is a simple kick operation, and the description covers the essential behavior (temporary removal). The existence of an output schema reduces the need for return details, but the description omits important context such as required permissions, error conditions, or side effects. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the 'chat' and 'user' parameters. It does not clarify whether these accept IDs, usernames, or both, nor how the system resolves them. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 a specific action (kick) and resource (participant from chat), and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail ('they will be able to return'), which differentiates it from the sibling tool ban_participant. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool vs. alternatives by noting the kicked user can return, suggesting a temporary removal distinct from a permanent ban. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide WHEN-NOT guidelines, so it slightly falls short of a 5.

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