Timeout member

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the two-phase behavior: the first call is non-destructive and returns a preview, the second call applies the timeout. It also mentions the audit log. While annotations already indicate destructive behavior, the description provides the safety mechanism context, earning a 4.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's behavior and usage pattern.

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 tool's complexity (two-step, 6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main workflow and audit log but omits details for 'dry_run' and 'reason'. It also does not mention error scenarios or prerequisites. While adequate, it leaves gaps, earning a 3.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining confirm_token's role in the two-step process. However, it does not explain 'dry_run' or 'reason' beyond schema. This partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully, so scores a 3.

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's purpose: timing out a member so they cannot talk, react, or join voice for up to 28 days. It uses a specific verb ('Time a member out') and identifies the resource (member). While it implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'remove_timeout', it does not explicitly differentiate, so scores a 4.

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 provides excellent usage guidelines: it explains the two-step process (first call is a safe preview, second with confirm_token applies the timeout), advises relaying the preview for user approval, and notes the reason appears in the audit log. This explicitly guides when and how to use the tool safely.

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