banned_words_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, how duplicates are handled, or if there are rate limits or authorization requirements.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could slightly expand on the resource (e.g., 'channel's banned list') without losing 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?

Given low complexity (1 simple parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It does not mention the return value, success indicator, or any side effects, which an agent would need to confirm the operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats the parameter name ('words') without adding meaning about format, constraints (e.g., max length, allowed characters), or whether phrases are case-sensitive.

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 'Add words/phrases to the banned list' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (words/phrases to the banned list). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like banned_words_remove and banned_words_list.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to add vs remove or list). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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