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

Annotations carry only destructiveHint=true, so the description usefully adds that this is a WRITE, requires scope flex.community.members.update, and that `tags` replaces the entire tag list (the concrete destructive behavior). It stops short of describing return shape, error behavior, or reversibility, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Compact single paragraph, front-loaded with the WRITE marker, followed by affected fields, semantics, scope, and endpoint in priority order. The field enumeration partially duplicates the schema, a minor redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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 9-parameter mutation with a nested `properties` object, minimal annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: mutation nature, partial-update rule, destructive tag behavior, auth scope, and the underlying API call. It does not address the nested custom-properties object or failure modes, which is the only real gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema with the partial-update rule ("only the fields you pass are changed") and the tag-replacement warning, but the field list itself merely restates schema property names.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("WRITE. Update a member") and enumerates the exact updatable fields, which distinguishes it cleanly from create_member, get_member and list_members without opening any schema. An agent can tell instantly what this tool mutates.

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 supplies partial-update semantics ("Only the fields you pass are changed") and the required scope, which implies how to call it. However, it never states when to reach for this versus create_member or a bulk/membership tool, nor any when-not conditions, so usage is only implied.

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