Restore member

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the target is a revoked member; it says nothing about required admin privileges, whether prior sessions/2FA state are preserved, or what a partial failure looks like.

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?

It is a single waste-free phrase, but four words is far too small for a five-parameter mutation tool. This is under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotation-level help beyond hints, the definition leaves the agent without enough to call the tool correctly. At minimum it should clarify the org/member identifiers and the body wrapper parameters.

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 five parameters, including opaque 'form', 'params', and 'json_body' objects, and the description compensates for none of them. Nothing explains what org_id/member_id must reference or what goes into the body wrapper.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Restore a revoked member") and the qualifier "revoked" narrows the state the target must be in. It does not distinguish this from the sibling restore_member_vnext or bulk_restore_members, which an agent would need to choose between.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the vnext variant or the bulk restore, and no preconditions beyond the implied "member must be revoked". The agent is left to infer org/member resolution and admin requirements on its own.

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