restrict_chat_member

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

Annotations already signal that the tool is non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the supergroup scope constraint, which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like the effect of until_date or how restrictions are applied/removed.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and scope, making it easy to parse and entirely free of redundancy.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It omits critical operational details such as the format of permissions, the role of until_date, and any required conditions (e.g., bot permissions, user membership state). This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct an 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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters (until_date, permissions, use_independent_chat_permissions), but it adds no parameter-specific details. It provides no guidance on the structure of permissions or semantics of until_date, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 (restrict), resource (user's permissions), and scope (supergroup). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ban_chat_member and promote_chat_member by focusing on permission modification rather than membership removal or administrative promotion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., bot must be admin), when it should be preferred over ban_chat_member or set_chat_permissions, or exclusions such as applicability only to non-administrator users.

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