Ban Community Member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds a confirm gate requirement, but it merely echoes the schema wording and says nothing about irreversibility, side effects (e.g., access removal), or permissions.

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, no filler, and the state-changing nature is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive tool.

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, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description omits the consequences of banning, whether it is reversible, and what distinguishes it from remove_member/delete_community_member. An agent has to guess at the blast radius before invoking it.

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 100% and all three parameters (account, confirm, member_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Ban Community Member" is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title, and the added clause "Changes community state" is vague. The verb+resource is inferable from the name, but the description does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings like remove_member or delete_community_member.

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 only guidance is the confirm=true precondition, which is really a parameter rule rather than a when-to-use statement. There is no indication of when to ban versus removing or deleting a member, nor any prerequisite or scope conditions.

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