banUser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that without a username, it returns chat logs for LLM review, which adds some behavioral context. However, it fails to disclose critical details like permissions required, whether the ban is permanent or temporary, rate limits, or what happens if the user doesn't exist, leaving significant gaps.

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 two sentences but poorly structured and front-loaded. The second sentence about returning chat logs without a username is confusing and dilutes the primary purpose, making it inefficient and potentially misleading rather than concise.

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 the complexity of a ban operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the ban's effects, error handling, or return values, and the chat log return condition adds confusion without clarifying the tool's full behavior, failing to compensate for the missing structured data.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'usernameOrDescriptor' values like 'toxic' or 'spammer' function in practice, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states the tool bans a user from Twitch chat, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it introduces confusion by mentioning that without a username it returns chat logs, which contradicts the primary purpose and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'timeoutUser' or 'getRecentChatLog'.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'timeoutUser' or 'getRecentChatLog'. The description implies usage for banning users but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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