move_voice_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the prerequisite of current voice connection, but says nothing about permissions required, what happens to the member's audio/session during the move, or whether the action is logged. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 the core action first and the prerequisite in parentheses. No wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the key precondition but omits permission requirements, audit behavior, and failure modes. Adequate as a minimum viable definition but leaves important operational context unstated.

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 all four parameters (userId, channelId, guildId default, reason) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Move a member to another voice or stage channel') clearly. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like modify_voice_state or disconnect_voice_member, so it's clear but lacks the sibling-differentiation needed for 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 prerequisite 'they must currently be connected to voice' implies when the tool applies, but there are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternative tools (e.g., modify_voice_state for other state changes). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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