members_bulk_ban

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it is 'IRREVERSIBLE without manual unban', requires ConfirmRequired gating, and explains the dry-run mechanism (`MCP_DRY_RUN=false`). It also discloses partial-failure behavior (Discord returns 200 with both arrays), which is not available from annotations alone.

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 efficiently structured with bold section headers (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Returns, Security). Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Despite having a rich output schema, the description provides a complete overview: purpose, usage cases, exclusions, return shape, and security gating. For a destructive operation with 5 parameters, it covers all critical contextual aspects an agent needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the purpose and confirmation flow. It correctly aligns with schema but doesn't enrich parameter semantics further.

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 many users at once (1-200 per call)', a specific verb+resource+scope that clearly defines the tool's purpose. It distinguishes this bulk operation from sibling `members_ban` by explicitly contrasting single vs. bulk use.

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 explicit 'When to use' (mass moderation, raid response) and 'When NOT to use' (single user → use members_ban). This gives the agent clear decision criteria for selecting this tool over alternatives, going beyond mere implication.

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