ban_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the optional message deletion window, which is a nice touch, but omits critical information for a ban operation: irreversibility, permission requirements, impact on server invites, or the fact that the user must rejoin via invite. The description could be much more transparent about the destructive nature of the action.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately provides a useful parameter constraint. Every word earns its place with no fluff or 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?

For a destructive tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention permissions, consequences, or behavior when optional parameters are omitted. While an output schema exists and may cover return values, the lack of operational context and the potential for misuse from unclear side effects make this description incomplete for a ban operation.

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 description adds value by constraining delete_message_seconds to a range (0-604800), which is not present in the schema (which only specifies integer and default 0). However, the other three parameters (user_id, guild_id, reason) receive no descriptive attention. The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail but leaves gaps.

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 the specific verb 'Ban' and names the resource ('a user from the server'), making the action immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kick_member and timeout_member. The added detail of the message deletion window range (0 to 604800 seconds) adds useful specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as timeout_member or kick_member, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The optional deletion window range is the only contextual hint, but it is more of a parameter detail than usage guidance.

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