Unban member

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the behavioral outcome that the user 'can rejoin with an invite,' which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, what happens if the user is not banned, or audit-log implications.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Lift a ban') and followed by the consequence. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple unban operation with a clear schema and annotations, the description is sufficient to understand the core functionality. It lacks some edge-case details (e.g., behavior when user is not banned, permission requirements), but these are not critical for a basic action of this complexity.

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 67%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but because the baseline is established by the schema, a score of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify the 'guild' fallback or 'reason' usage beyond the schema.

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 ('Lift a ban') and the resource/target ('the user'), making it obvious this tool reverses a ban. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like ban_member, kick_member, and timeout_member by focusing on the unban action.

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 for when to use this tool: when a ban should be lifted so the user can rejoin. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is straightforward enough that a user would not confuse it with other member-management tools.

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