player_ban

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action 'ban' without explaining permanence, effect on player connection, whether the reason appears in the ban list, or reversibility. For a mutating tool this is a significant omission.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, very concise. But it's so short that it doesn't carry useful context – brevity without substance.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and the description doesn't explain effects (permanent, revocable via player_pardon), reason optionality, or relation to siblings like player_kick. For a mutation tool with a cleanup sibling, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what 'player' means (username, UUID, name pattern?) nor what 'reason' does (displayed to player? logged?). The description adds no meaning beyond the property names.

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 uses a clear verb (Ban) and resource (a player), and states the scope ('from the server'). It distinguishes from player_kick by implying permanence, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling kick tool.

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 when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't mention when to use ban vs kick, nor that it can be reversed with player_pardon. An agent must infer the difference from the sibling names alone.

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