members_ban

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds beyond this: explains consequence (can't rejoin until unbanned), idempotence (re-banning no-op), and the dry-run/confirm gating mechanism. No contradiction with 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?

Well-structured with bold section headers, bullet lists, and no filler. Every sentence conveys essential operating information: purpose, alternatives, optional parameter, return value, idempotence, and security. Appropriate length for a destructive tool.

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 destructive tool with output schema, description covers purpose, usage vs alternatives, behavioral consequences, parameter semantics, return format ({banned, user_id, guild_id}), idempotence, and security. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds explicit semantics for delete_message_seconds ('deletes that user's recent messages' with range) and explains the __confirm parameter's role in the security flow, which adds value over the schema. Therefore 4.

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 'Ban a user from a guild' (specific verb+resource), and immediately distinguishes from siblings by noting it is DESTRUCTIVE and 'user can't rejoin until unbanned.' The 'When NOT to use' section explicitly names members_kick and members_bulk_ban as alternatives, making purpose distinct.

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?

Provides clear 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with explicit alternative tools (members_kick for soft-removal, members_bulk_ban for multiple users). Also states security prerequisites (ConfirmRequired, __confirm:true, MCP_DRY_RUN=false) which guide invocation. This is comprehensive usage guidance.

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