ban_member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the message-deletion side effect, which is genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations, but it omits permanence (the schema's confirm field calls this a 'permanent action'), reversibility, and any permission requirements.

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; the primary action comes first and the optional side effect second. It is efficient, though it is short enough that brevity shades into under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 permanent, destructive moderation action with no output schema, the description leaves out reversibility, permission requirements, and what a preview without confirm actually returns. The schema and annotations cover the safety hints and parameters, but an agent still lacks the context needed to know the consequences of a successful call.

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 coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including confirm, dry_run, and reason. The description only implicitly links 'deleting their recent messages' to delete_message_hours, adding little meaning beyond what the schema provides — baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Ban a user from the server') plus an option ('optionally deleting their recent messages'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with kick_member or timeout_member, leaving sibling differentiation to inference from the verb 'ban'.

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 and no mention of when not to use it — nothing tells the agent why it should ban rather than kick or timeout a member. The presence of confirm/dry_run in the schema hints at a preview workflow, but the description never surfaces that two-step usage pattern.

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