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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds two pieces of real behavioral context the agent cannot get elsewhere – that the effect persists until mIRC_unban and that admin+ privileges are required. It still omits whether the banned member is removed from the channel or can rejoin, and whether ban state is visible to others.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the permanence/reversal constraint plus permission gate following in priority order.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, durability, reversal path, and authorization. Slightly incomplete on post-ban member state and error behavior, but nothing critical to invoking it is missing.

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% and both parameters document their source (mIRC_list/mIRC_create, mDM_list_contacts/radar logs). The description adds only the implication that identity_id identifies the 'member'; no additional format or selection guidance. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ban a member from the channel') and names the sibling that reverses it, which separates it from mIRC_kick and mIRC_unban. It stops short of stating what banning actually does to the member (removal, message visibility), so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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 'permanent until you call mIRC_unban' clause implies this is the durable-moderation choice, but the description never contrasts it with mIRC_kick or mIRC_set_role, so the agent must infer which moderation tool fits. The admin+ prerequisite is a useful gate but not usage guidance.

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