timeout_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral facts: the 28-day maximum and the fact that a null value removes the punishment rather than applying it. It omits required permissions, whether the member is notified, what happens to messages during the timeout, and what the call returns.

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 plus limit are front-loaded before the null-removal caveat. The garbled character encoding slightly degrades readability but the wording itself is efficient.

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 state-changing moderation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the key constraint and the reversal mechanism but leaves an agent without the permission requirements or side-effect information needed to invoke it confidently in production.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the most error-prone parameter well — until_iso is ISO 8601, capped at 28 days, and null clears the timeout — but guild_id, user_id, and reason receive no meaning at all from either the schema or the description.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Silencia (castigo) um membro'), which is clearly a timeout/mute operation, and the 28-day cap plus null-removal semantics further pin down the action. It is distinguishable from siblings like ban_member and kick_member by the fact that it is time-bounded and reversible, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it says the timeout lasts until a date and that null removes it, which tells the agent the tool is reversible, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose timeout_member over ban_member or kick_member, nor any prerequisite or permission context.

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