members_unban

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent), the description adds concrete behavioral details: the return shape `{unbanned, user_id, guild_id}` and the idempotency edge case that unbanning a non-banned user returns 404 from Discord. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the 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?

The description is extremely concise, using a short purpose statement, a one-item usage list, and a one-sentence returns/idempotency note. Every sentence serves a clear function, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 simple unban operation with a well-defined output schema, full parameter coverage, and relevant annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a critical edge case. There is no significant missing information.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (guild_id, user_id, audit_reason). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the verb ('Remove a ban') and the specific resource (a user's ban), with the consequence 'allowing them to rejoin'. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like members_ban, members_list_bans, and members_get_ban.

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 'When to use' section gives clear context: 'Restore a previously-banned user.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is unambiguous and adequate for choosing this tool over similar ones.

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