player_pardon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Unban' clearly discloses a state-changing operation that removes a ban, but it does not mention permissions, output, or the fact that it only affects player bans rather than IP bans.

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 entire description is one clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. The key verb 'Unban' is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool's trivial single-parameter shape, the description is minimally adequate for selecting and making a first attempt at a call. However, with no annotations or output schema, it leaves gaps around return behavior, exact player identification, and prerequisites such as the player currently being banned.

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?

The schema offers a single required `player` string with no description, and the description does not clarify the expected format (username vs UUID) or any constraints. Because schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate but only repeats the concept of 'a player' without adding parameter-specific semantics.

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 the specific action verb 'Unban' and names the target resource ('a player'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ban and kick tools by describing the opposite operation.

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 implies the use case—when a previously banned player should be allowed back—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like player_ban or player_kick. There is no exclusionary guidance, so an agent must infer the conditions.

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