Ban member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the member loses access and cannot re-request to join, deleted posts/comments are irreversible, and a paid subscription is not cancelled as a side effect. The only blemish is the internal contradiction between "Admins only" and the trailing "Admins and moderators," which leaves the actual permission requirement ambiguous.

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 key facts (ban, irreversible post deletion, no subscription cancel) are front-loaded, but the second sentence is bloated and awkwardly phrased ("as Membership settings, Ban does:"), and the closing permission fragment reads like leftover text. Trimming would also have prevented the admins/moderators contradiction.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers permissions, irreversibility, side effects on subscriptions, and the reverse operation, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not say what is returned or what happens on a non-admin/moderator call, leaving a small gap for a high-stakes write.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented and baseline would be 3. The description still earns a bump by explaining the consequence of delete_recent_posts (removes recent posts and comments, cannot be undone) beyond the schema's neutral "as Skool offers" wording, and by clarifying the one-member-per-call constraint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Ban a member from the group") and immediately adds a distinguishing scope detail (optionally deleting recent posts, one member at a time). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_member, so an agent can route between the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (admin action, one member per call) and names the alternative tool remove_member rather than leaving the agent to infer it. However, "remove_member lifts a ban" is a terse, easily misread statement of the reverse relationship, and the guidance closes with a permission clause that conflicts with the opening one.

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