ban_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the message-purge window (0–604800s, capped at 7 days), but omits key traits for a destructive moderation action: required permissions, that the ban persists until unban_member is called, and error/edge behavior. Substantial gaps remain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action precedes the optional modifier. The parenthetical '0 to 604800 seconds = 7 days' duplicates schema content but is brief, so it is only a minor 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 no-annotation, no-output-schema moderation mutation, the description covers the core action and the purge option but leaves permissions, reversibility, and failure modes unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's destructive nature.

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 userId, reason, guildId, and deleteMessageSeconds thoroughly. The description merely restates the deleteMessageSeconds range that the schema already encodes, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Ban a user from the server') that is clearly distinguishable from siblings like kick_member, unban_member, and timeout_member. The optional message-purge capability is also called out. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the adjacent moderation tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as kick_member or timeout_member for less severe moderation. The purge-window mention is capability detail rather than usage guidance. An agent gets no help deciding ban vs. the other member-moderation siblings.

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