Ban a player account (console)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the description adds little beyond stating the action. It does not explain the behavioral impact (e.g., immediate block on login, data retention, reversibility). No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., including a note on side effects or success response).

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 tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or what the agent should expect after invocation. The agent lacks critical context for safe use.

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 covers the single parameter 'id' with a clear description. The tool description does not add any extra semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Ban'), the resource ('player account'), and the method ('by user ID via the console API'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nakama_unban_account by the specificity of 'ban' and 'console API'. The title reinforces this.

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 usage when needing to ban a player account, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nakama_unban_account (or other console tools). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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