ban_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Bannit') which implies a destructive, permanent removal, but doesn't disclose behavioral details like required permissions, whether bans are reversible (though 'unban_member' exists), rate limits, or what happens to the user's data. For a high-impact mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence in French with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or response format. Given the high-stakes nature of banning and the lack of structured safety hints, more context is needed.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints for 'userId' or typical values for 'deleteMessageSeconds'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Bannit un membre du serveur' clearly states the action (ban) and target (server member) in French. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kick_member' or 'timeout_member' beyond the obvious difference in action severity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kick_member', 'timeout_member', or 'warn_member'. The description states what it does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar tools.

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