Disconnect member from voice

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by clarifying that the action is non-destructive (only ends voice, keeps member in server). This adds useful context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clarifying statement. No wasted words, perfect conciseness.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (disconnect from voice), the description is nearly complete. It doesn't handle edge cases like member not in voice or failure reasons, but for a straightforward command, it's 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 coverage is 67% (member and guild described, reason only has maxLength). The description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The reason parameter lacks description, and the description doesn't compensate.

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 ('Remove a member from whatever voice channel') and specifies the scope ('They stay in the server; only the voice connection ends'), which distinguishes it from kicking. This is specific and actionable.

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?

The description implies the use case (disconnecting from voice without removing from server), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like kick_member. However, the clarity of the action makes it easy for an agent to infer appropriate context.

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