channel_demoteChannelAdmin

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('demotes') without mentioning permissions required, reversibility, side effects on the user's admin status, or what happens if the user is not an admin. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the [Channel Chat] context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 relatively simple with three well-documented parameters, and the purpose is clear. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify return values, success/failure behavior, or any prerequisites. For a mutation tool, this leaves some gaps, but the schema coverage keeps it at a minimum viable level.

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%, with clear descriptions for chatId, userId, and sessionId. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Demotes') and resource ('a channel admin to a regular subscriber'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like channel_revokeChannelAdminInvite (which revokes an invite) and groupChat_demoteParticipants (which operates on group chats). The [Channel Chat] prefix reinforces the target resource.

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 [Channel Chat] prefix provides clear context that this tool is for channel chats, not group chats or other chat types. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the naming and prefix imply the appropriate use case, which is sufficient for an agent to differentiate from group demotion tools.

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