timeoutUser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the main action (timeout) and an edge case (returning chat logs), but fails to cover critical aspects like permissions needed, timeout duration, effects on the user, or error handling. The edge case description is inconsistent with the required parameters, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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: the first sentence states the purpose, while the second introduces a contradictory edge case that undermines clarity. This under-specification wastes space on misleading information rather than being efficiently concise. It fails to front-load essential details effectively.

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 moderation action with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on outcomes (e.g., what happens after timeout), error cases, or integration with sibling tools like 'banUser'. The contradictory edge case further reduces completeness, leaving the agent with inadequate context for reliable use.

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 fully documents the two parameters. The description adds no meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'usernameOrDescriptor' values like 'toxic' are interpreted or typical 'reason' formats). The mention of 'no username' contradicts the required 'usernameOrDescriptor', offering no useful parameter guidance.

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's purpose ('Timeout a user in the Twitch chat'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it adds a confusing secondary behavior ('If no username is provided, it will return the recent chat log for LLM review') that contradicts the required parameters and muddles the primary purpose. This makes it vague rather than specific.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'banUser' or 'getRecentChatLog'. It mentions returning chat logs in a specific case, but this is misleading due to parameter requirements. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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