guild_change_restore

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

Annotations declare it is not read-only, is idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world; the description adds that restoration is selective and limited to supported inverses rather than whole-guild rollback. It does not disclose permissions, failure modes, or the confirmation/approval workflow beyond 'after a separate review,' so it adds only moderate context.

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 with no irrelevant detail, though the trailing bold markers are untidy. It is appropriately sized for the core purpose.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with a required confirmation workflow and an output schema, the description is thin. It gives scope and purpose, but omits when to use it versus sibling plan/apply tools and how the approval/confirmation sequence works, leaving much to schema descriptions and annotations.

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 63%, leaving plan_ref, approval_id, and operation_indexes undocumented in the schema. The description does not define what those parameters contain or how to construct them, offering only loose conceptual ties ('change plan', 'separate review', 'selected supported inverses'); the schema does the heavy lifting elsewhere.

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 (Restore) and resource (selected supported inverses from an existing-guild change plan) plus scope (selective, not whole-guild rollback). It distinguishes from whole-guild rollback but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like guild_change_apply or guild_change_plan.

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 usage after a separate review and for selective restoration rather than whole rollback. However, it never names alternatives or conditions that clearly select it over guild_change_plan/guild_change_apply, so 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.