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

Discloses key behaviors: one pending appeal per colony, mod review, failure conditions, and auto-unban on accepted appeal. Annotations provide only basic hints, so description adds substantial value.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words. The structure is logical: purpose, constraints, failure cases, outcome. Could be slightly more structured but very readable.

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 tool has an output schema and 2 parameters, the description covers purpose, preconditions, failure modes, and postconditions. Offers enough context for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 already fully describes both parameters with clear descriptions (colony_name and body). Description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's 100% 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?

Clearly states 'Appeal your active ban in a colony' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_ban_user, colony_list_ban_appeals, and colony_resolve_ban_appeal by specifying it is for users to appeal their own bans.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (active ban) and when it fails (no active ban or appeal pending). Mentions checking outcome later via appeal status. Could explicitly call out not to use when appeal already pending, but it's implied.

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