unban

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the action but discloses nothing about permissions required, reversibility, side effects, or what happens to the user's access, leaving the agent with no behavioral context.

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 wasted words. For a zero-parameter tool, this is maximally concise and well structured.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how the affected user/channel is determined, what authorization is needed, or what the result will be, leaving important context 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?

The input schema has zero parameters and the coverage is effectively complete, so the baseline for 0 params applies. The description adds no parameter detail, but there are no parameters to explain, making this adequate.

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 a specific verb ('Unban') and resource ('a user in a channel'), and it clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ban' and 'kick'. It loses a point only because it doesn't clarify how the user or channel is identified, though the tool has no parameters.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives. An agent must infer that it reverses a ban rather than using 'ban' or 'kick', but there is no stated condition or exclusion.

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