discord_moderation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds almost nothing on top of them: it doesn't warn that bans are irreversible, what permissions are required, or what rate limits apply. The only behavioral hint is the vague mention of 'limits' in the help pointer.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and action set before the help pointer. No filler, though the second sentence pushes nearly all substance out of the definition.

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 multi-action tool with a nested body and polymorphic query/params, the description is thin — the semantics of each action live entirely behind discord_help. Given there is no output schema and 83% schema coverage, the explicit pointer to the help tool is the mechanism that makes this definition callable, so it is minimally complete but not self-sufficient.

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 83%, so the schema itself carries most parameter meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing about individual parameters beyond deferring to discord_help, but that deferral is at least a consistent, discoverable pattern with the sibling discord_help tool.

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 names the resource domain (Discord moderation) and enumerates the five actions, so an agent knows the tool's territory. However, it never says what the individual actions do — the distinction between 'bans', 'ban', 'ban_info', and 'bulk_ban' is left entirely to the enum and to discord_help.

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?

Usage is implied by the action list and by the pointer to discord_help for IDs, request fields, limits and examples. There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like discord_members or discord_automod, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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