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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so mutation is known. The description adds partial-update semantics ('only include the fields you want to change'), which is useful behavioral context beyond structured data. However, it does not disclose consequences of role changes or how unspecified fields are handled beyond the implied preservation.

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 sentence that states the purpose and the key usage pattern with zero wasted words. The 'edit' action is front-loaded, and the partial-update instruction follows naturally.

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 output schema exists, return values are externally documented. Annotations cover safety. The schema covers all parameters at 100% coverage. The description's partial-update statement fills the main behavioral gap. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could briefly mention not to use it for user creation or deletion.

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%, so all parameter descriptions are present in the schema. The description's phrase 'only include the fields you want to change' subtly reinforces the optionality of non-id fields but does not add new per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action and resource: 'Edit a team member'. The title reinforces this. It is clearly distinct from invite_user and remove_user, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 description only says 'only include the fields you want to change', which is a how-to instruction, not a when-to-use instruction. It gives no guidance on selecting this tool over siblings like invite_user, remove_user, or update_my_profile, which is a notable gap given the large sibling list.

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