Restore member vnext

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

Annotations already state this is not read-only, not destructive, and open-world. The description adds the useful context that the operation restores a revoked member and mentions a 'newer response shape,' but it does not disclose permission requirements, side effects, or how the response shape differs.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to the missing usage and parameter details elsewhere.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema, 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and only generic annotations. The description does not provide enough detail about required inputs, side effects, or version-specific behavior to fully equip an agent to call it correctly.

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% for 5 parameters. The description only vaguely maps 'member' to member_id and says nothing about org_id, form, params, or json_body. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Restore a revoked member.' The parenthetical 'newer response shape' hints that this is a variant of the sibling restore_member tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate when one should be used over the other.

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?

It implies the tool is for restoring a revoked member, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling restore_member or bulk restore tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are stated.

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