Ban member

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

Annotations already indicate destructive intent, but the description adds significant context: the two-step confirm flow, that the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus confirm_token, and that it can delete recent messages. This goes beyond the annotations and clearly explains the tool's safety and destructive behavior.

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?

Three focused sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the flow details. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or filler, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description still indicates return values (preview plus confirm_token) and covers the main flow, safety, and the edge case of departed users. It does not describe the preview's contents or failure conditions, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 describes user, guild, and delete_message_seconds. The description compensates for the undocumented dry_run and confirm_token by explaining the preview/confirm workflow, and clarifies that user accepts IDs for departed members. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the 'reason' parameter remains unaddressed.

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 tool bans a user from the server, optionally deletes their recent messages, and works on users who have already left. This specific verb+resource combination, along with unique capabilities, distinguishes it from sibling tools like kick_member and unban_member.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance: it is safe to call directly for a preview, then repeat with the confirm_token to execute. It also notes the user ID handling for departed members. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to prefer this over kick_member) or state when not to use it.

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