discord_unban_member

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

Even with idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations present, the description adds meaningful behavior: it names the required Ban Members permission, discloses that the reason is recorded in the audit log, and clarifies the practical consequence of the ban being lifted. This goes beyond the structured 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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the effect, the permission requirement, and the relationship to the inverse tool. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-required-parameter mutation with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it does, what permission is needed, and what side effect to expect. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents guild_id, user_id, and reason fully. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states; the audit-log note about reason duplicates the schema's own description.

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 concrete action and resource: 'Lift a ban so the user may rejoin via a new invite.' It also explicitly states the inverse relationship to discord_ban_member, which clearly distinguishes it from that sibling and other member-moderation tools.

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?

It names the direct alternative it reverses (discord_ban_member) and states the required permission, giving an agent clear conditions for when this tool applies. The purpose of undoing a ban is unambiguous, and no competing sibling is relevant for that action.

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