discord_ban_member

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds exactly the kind of context the rubric asks for: what gets destroyed (recent messages via bulk-delete), the auth/permission requirement, the role-hierarchy constraint, and the audit-log side effect. Everything disclosed is consistent with the annotations; idempotentHint=true aligns with the 'blocking re-entry' state model. No contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core purpose and permanence, optional destructive behavior, prerequisites plus sibling routing, and the audit-log side effect. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded before alternatives and side effects, with zero 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 mutation tool with 100% schema coverage, annotations carrying the safety profile, and no output schema, nothing essential is missing. An agent knows what the operation does, what it destroys, what permissions are needed, how to reverse it, and the non-permanent alternative — all required to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (reason, user_id, guild_id, delete_message_days) is already fully documented in the schema. The description loosely ties 'bulk-deletes their recent messages' to delete_message_days and 'audit log' to reason, but it adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Ban a user from the server' — and adds the defining effect, 'blocking re-entry until unbanned.' It also distinguishes itself from nearby siblings by name (discord_unban_member, discord_kick_member), so an agent can differentiate the operation without opening any schema.

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 explicitly routes to alternatives: 'Use discord_unban_member to reverse, or discord_kick_member for a non-permanent removal.' It also states the hard prerequisites upfront — 'Requires the Ban Members permission, and the bot's top role must outrank the target's' — leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is applicable.

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