guild_blueprint_apply

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing local checkpointing, Discord reconciliation, pre-write verification checks (bot identity, allowlist, permissions, hierarchy, drift, apply lock), guarantees that it never deletes resources or grants its own permissions, and behavior on ambiguity. It also explains the resume-safe nature and duplicate-prevention mechanisms. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 well-structured with bold labels (Purpose, When to use, Safety, Resume, Returns) and front-loads the purpose. It is longer than minimal, but every section adds necessary safety or workflow detail for a complex destructive tool, so the length is justified.

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?

Given the tool's destructive and multi-step nature, the description covers purpose, usage prerequisites, safety guarantees, resume semantics, and return contents. With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description leaves no critical gap for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% and individual fields already have rich descriptions. The description adds workflow-level meaning by specifying 'exactly one unchanged local plan_ref or legacy plan_token', the need for exact IDs, and the MCP_DRY_RUN=false requirement, reinforcing the oneOf contract and the confirm flow in a way the schema alone does not.

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 opens with an explicit purpose: 'Apply a previously previewed guild_blueprint_plan safely to one explicit guild using the exact caller-owned bot.' This names a specific verb, resource, and scope, and clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like guild_blueprint_plan, guild_blueprint_compile, and guild_blueprint_evidence.

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 'When to use' section is explicit: call only after receiving approval for the approval_id, pass exactly one unchanged plan_ref or legacy plan_token, exact guild/bot IDs, set __confirm:true, and run with MCP_DRY_RUN=false. It also provides resume guidance for partial failures, making the usage conditions unambiguous.

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