remove_timeout

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 does not state the required permission (e.g. Moderate Members), whether the action is audit-logged, what happens if the member has no active timeout, or whether the change is reversible — only that a timeout is removed.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the schema covers the inputs well, but the description omits permission requirements, error/edge-case behavior (no active timeout), and confirmation of the effect, leaving meaningful gaps an agent would want.

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%, with reason, userId, and guildId each documented, including the DISCORD_GUILD_ID default. The description adds nothing 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Remove an active timeout from a member') and is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, name the inverse sibling 'timeout_member', so an agent must infer the pairing from naming alone rather than being told.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The only implicit signal is 'active timeout', which hints this is the inverse of timeout_member, but the reader must construct that relationship unaided.

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