guild_change_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: existing IDs preserved, omitted fields untouched, and creates/deletes rejected. The plan/approval/snapshot binding is also disclosed, giving the agent a clear picture of the non-mutating contract.

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?

Bold Purpose/Safety/Returns headers make it well front-loaded and scannable, with no filler sentences. Mild redundancy: the Returns enumeration repeats what the declared output schema already provides.

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 complex nested-object planning tool it covers purpose, the safety contract, and the review-before-apply workflow, and the output schema handles the return shape. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance against the sibling plan/apply/restore tools.

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 an output schema exists, so the structured fields carry the parameter burden. The description adds only the high-level notion of 'bounded edits' without clarifying any individual parameter's semantics, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect an existing guild and create a target-bound, read-only change plan' scoped to channel, role, ordering, and permission-overwrite edits. This is far more than a name restatement, but it never names or distinguishes itself from sibling planning tools such as guild_blueprint_plan or the adjacent guild_change_apply/guild_change_restore.

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 Safety line implies the sequencing ('must be reviewed before apply'), which hints that this precedes guild_change_apply. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. guild_blueprint_plan), so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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