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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is signposted; the description earns credit for adding specifics those hints cannot convey: unchanged attributes are preserved, changed values are overwritten, and the old values are not recoverable via the API. It stops short of auth requirements or any note about what the API returns on partial failure.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the core partial-update semantics, ending with the endpoint. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 12-parameter mutation with a nested customFields object and no output schema, the description covers the things that matter most: mutation intent, partial-update behavior, irreversibility, and email-change routing, while the schema and annotations handle the rest. Minor gaps remain around what an update returns and behavior on an unknown key.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does add one genuinely useful clarification the schema cannot: that new_email, not key, changes the address, resolving the ambiguity created by key accepting an email address. Beyond that it restates the partial-update contract rather than adding field-level meaning.

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?

"WRITE: change only the given attributes of a member" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies this is a partial update, not a replace. It never names the create counterpart (cyberimpact_add_member) or the read counterparts, so sibling differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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 implied: it is for modifying an existing member, and "Set new_email to change the address" steers the agent away from abusing the key field for email changes. But there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use add_member for new members, get_member to read first) and no alternatives named.

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