discord_bulk_ban

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's safety warning reinforces rather than repeats it. The description adds valuable behavioral details: dry_run defaults to true for safe preview, requires Ban Members and Manage Server permissions, returns counts of banned vs failed users, and fails wholesale with an error if no user can be banned. This goes beyond what the annotations provide, though it doesn't specify the exact error shape or response format.

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?

Four sentences, all information-dense with no filler. The critical safety instruction (dry_run default) is front-loaded, followed by permissions, return values, and the sibling comparison. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a destructive bulk operation, and the description covers prerequisites (permissions), safety workflow (dry-run), behavior (counts, wholesale failure), and routing (sibling tool for single bans). The output schema is absent, but the description's mention of returned counts and error behavior compensates enough. The 200-user max and delete_message_seconds bounds are already in the schema. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds cross-parameter context: it explains the safe-by-default workflow tying dry_run to the overall call behavior, and mentions the 200-user API limit context. It doesn't add per-parameter details beyond the schema, but it highlights the most important behavioral parameter (dry_run) and the safety implications.

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 ('Ban') and resource ('many users in a single call'), with an explicit intended use case ('raid mitigation'). It distinguishes itself from discord_ban_member by naming the sibling and the condition for choosing it (single ban with finer control).

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 guidance: use for raid mitigation and bulk banning; use discord_ban_member for a single ban with finer control. It also gives a clear workflow: call with dry_run first to preview, then re-call with dry_run:false. This is actionable routing for an agent.

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