timeout_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a temporary mute without detailing behavioral aspects. It doesn't mention required permissions, whether the timeout is reversible (though 'remove_timeout' sibling exists), rate limits, what happens if applied repeatedly, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste. The description is front-loaded with the core action and includes helpful parenthetical clarification about it being a temporary mute. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, permission requirements, or how it differs from similar moderation tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral and contextual gaps remain significant.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (userId, duration in minutes, reason). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Applique un timeout') and target resource ('à un membre'), with additional clarification that it's a temporary mute. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ban_member' (permanent) and 'remove_timeout' (reverse action), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'warn_member' or 'kick_member' which are different moderation actions.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'warn_member', 'kick_member', or 'ban_member'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., moderation permissions) or appropriate contexts for timeout versus other moderation actions.

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