unban_chat_member

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already imply. Annotations state readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not clarify side effects, permissions, or behavior on non-banned users. 'Previously banned' only implies a precondition.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and direct. It contains no fluff or redundant details, earning high marks for economy of language.

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 the simple nature of the tool, the description conveys the core action, but lacks guidance on usage context, return values (no output schema), and the purpose of the optional parameter. It is minimally viable but incomplete.

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 describes chat_id and user_id, but the optional 'only_if_banned' parameter lacks any description in both schema and description. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, leaving a gap despite 67% schema coverage.

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 'Unban a previously banned user' clearly states the action (unban) and resource (a user in a chat). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'unban_chat_sender_chat' which unbans a chat instead of a user.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ban_chat_member'. It does not mention prerequisites such as admin rights or that it should only be used for users currently banned.

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