ban_member

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly signals this is a destructive action needing confirmation, but says nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, or that the optional delete_message_seconds parameter purges recent messages (defaulting to 0, i.e. no purge).

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?

Two short sentences with no filler and the core action front-loaded, which is good structurally. However, the brevity is achieved through under-specification rather than efficiency, so it earns only a middling score.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four completely undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. It also appears in Portuguese with corrupted encoding, which may hinder an English-oriented agent and is inconsistent with the sibling tool naming.

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 four parameters are undocumented in structured fields, and the description adds no meaning whatsoever about guild_id, user_id, reason, or delete_message_seconds. An agent must guess the units (seconds) and semantics of the message-deletion window.

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?

"Bane um membro" states a specific verb (ban) and resource (member), which separates it from siblings like kick_member, timeout_member and unban_member by implication. It does not name the alternatives explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the verb alone.

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?

"Confirme com o usuário antes" gives one concrete procedural guideline: require user confirmation before executing. It offers no guidance on when to pick ban versus kick or timeout, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or role hierarchy constraints.

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