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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it specifies the HTTP method (PATCH), partial-update semantics, the `fields` passthrough mechanism, and that path ids are never sent in the body. This gives the agent a clear mental model of the request construction without contradicting the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key mutation signal. Every sentence earns its place: the endpoint, the partial-update behavior, the fields passthrough mechanism, and the path-id prohibition are all essential and clearly organized.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the important invocation details: what is updated, how updates are sent, and how path/body are separated. It does not describe the response shape, but that is less critical given the read-only absence and the clear focus on the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that `fields` is a passthrough for changed YCBM fields and that profileId and teamMemberId are path-only. This clarifies the body/path separation and how the nested fields object is used.

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 and resource: 'updates a team member on a profile.' The explicit 'MUTATES' prefix removes ambiguity about the operation's nature, and the full REST endpoint clearly distinguishes this from related tools like create_team_member or update_profile.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for mutating an existing team member via PATCH, and the partial-update wording implies it is appropriate for targeted changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it confidently.

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