Ban Model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the HTTP endpoint (POST) which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose whether the ban is permanent, whether it affects existing downloads, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the name is already banned. The description is minimal and doesn't add behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action. It includes the endpoint in parentheses, which is useful for technical context. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 simple one-parameter mutation tool, the description is minimal but functional. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't explain the effect of the ban (e.g., does it prevent downloads? does it apply to future searches?), nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. Given the tool's simplicity, a bit more context would be expected.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' with description 'Model name to ban.' The description repeats this exactly, adding no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 clearly states the action ('Ban a CivitAI model name') and identifies the resource (CivitAI model). It distinguishes from siblings like sdnext_civitai_remove_banned (which un-bans) and sdnext_civitai_banned (which lists banned models), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for banning a model name (as opposed to a specific model ID or version), nor does it reference the related list/remove banned tools. The context is implied by the name and sibling tools but not stated.

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