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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specificity by stating 'Side effects: modifies member role/quota.' This clarifies exactly what is mutated, going beyond the generic destructive annotation. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about the impact of the operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the side effect is noted in the second. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and scannable.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, nested payload) and the presence of an output schema (signal indicates true), the description is largely complete. It states the operation and side effects. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly clarify whether the update is partial (e.g., only changing one field) or resets unspecified fields, but the 'and/or' phrasing implies partial updates. Overall, adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%: both parameters (payload and member_user_id) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It mentions role and quota, but these are already in the schema.

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 ('Update') and resource ('corporate member's role and/or monthly fax quota'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-member-details (read) and update-user (different resource). The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 implies usage by stating what it updates, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., update-user or get-member-details) or any prerequisites. There is no exclusions or routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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