ban

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Ban' implies a destructive, permission-gated admin action, but the description says nothing about required privileges, whether the ban is reversible, or what happens to the user's existing messages — and gives no hint about the response.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity reflects missing information, not economy of expression.

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?

For a destructive moderation action with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description leaves critical gaps: target resolution, permission requirements, and reversibility. An agent could not safely call this tool from the definition alone.

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?

Zero parameters means the schema baseline is high, but that is precisely the problem here: a ban tool with no inputs gives no clue how the target user and channel are resolved (reply context, current chat, prior selection). The description adds nothing to resolve this ambiguity, so it falls short of the 0-param baseline.

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 ('a user in a channel'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling 'unban' and from 'block'/'unblock' (which read as global). However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with 'kick', the closest sibling, so the boundary between removal and ban is left for the agent to infer.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., admin rights in the channel), and no mention of alternatives such as 'kick' or 'block'. The agent is left to guess the intended scenario from the verb alone.

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