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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – critically it never clarifies partial-update semantics (are unchanged fields left intact or reset?), whether a role change has side effects, or what authorization is needed to modify another person's hours or permissions.

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 compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and the editable fields grouped at the end. No filler; the only shortfall is that its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

This is a six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 17% schema description coverage, so the description should do more. It omits update semantics, permission requirements, and any indication of what happens on success or failure, leaving the agent to guess at behavior for a write operation.

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 only 17%, so the description carries real weight here. Listing role, weekly hours, capacity and permissions maps onto four of the six parameters and tells the agent which fields are actually editable, though it says nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or what the permission strings or role enum mean in practice.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Change') on a specific resource ('a project member') and enumerates the mutable attributes (role, weekly hours, capacity, permissions). That distinguishes it from add_project_member and remove_project_member by implication, but the description never names those siblings or the project context explicitly beyond the tool name.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Change' – an agent must infer that the member already exists and that add_project_member/remove_project_member handle the lifecycle. There is no statement of when to prefer update_project or update_my_profile, and no mention of prerequisites or required permissions.

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