Timeout member

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true), the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the first call is non-destructive and returns a confirm_token, while the second call applies the destructive action. It also notes that "The reason lands in the audit log," adding audit context. No contradiction with annotations; the description clarifies the destructive hint applies only upon confirmation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, safe invocation steps, and audit log note. No redundancy or fluff.

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 confirmation, 6 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the essential flow and the confirm_token mechanism. It could mention error cases or that the token is required for the second call, but it does specify "repeating the call with the token applies the timeout." Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of dry_run and confirm_token through the two-step flow: "the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus a confirm_token; repeating the call with the token applies the timeout." It also gives meaning to reason by stating it lands in the audit log. The schema already covers guild, member, and duration_minutes, so the description adds value for the undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific action, resource, and effect: "Time a member out so they cannot talk, react, or join voice, for up to 28 days." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ban/kick (permanent) and remove_timeout (the opposite).

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 clear context on how to use the tool safely with the two-step preview/confirm flow: "Safe to call directly: the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus a confirm_token; repeating the call with the token applies the timeout." It also instructs to relay the preview for user approval. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the purpose implies when to use it.

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