guild_change_apply

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavior beyond that: exact snapshot matching, checkpointed operations, resume, and final readback. That materially helps an agent understand this is a resumable, verification-gated apply rather than a raw overwrite.

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 that carries the key traits. It is slightly marred by the stray trailing '**' and cramped spacing, but there is no filler text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers resume/checkpoint/readback, but for a mutation requiring plan_ref, approval_id, and confirmation tokens it does not explain the approval/confirmation flow that the parameters depend on.

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 71%, so most parameters (guild_id, expected_bot_id, __confirm_id, __confirm_hash) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: 'Apply one approved existing-guild change plan'. This distinguishes it functionally from the sibling guild_change_plan (which produces a plan) and guild_change_restore. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 word 'approved' implies a precondition (an existing plan and approval must already exist), which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as guild_change_plan or guild_change_restore.

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