kaiten_update_card_member_role

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds only the return fields, which the output schema already provides. It does not disclose what happens to the member's previous role (the thing being 'destroyed'), whether the operation requires card-admin rights, or what error occurs if member_id is not on the card.

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?

Two short sentences with the action stated first and the id-source hint immediately after; nothing is padded. 'with type 2' is partly redundant with the schema const but serves as a quick signal of the tool's narrow purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, one a fixed const) and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. However, for a tool flagged destructive with a non-idempotent hint, the description should mention that the existing role is overwritten and whether repeated calls are effectively idempotent, which would prevent an agent from mis-sequencing calls.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it partially does by tying member_id to the id returned by list_card_members. It adds nothing for card_id and merely restates that type is 2, which the schema already pins with a const. Roughly half the parameters get meaning beyond 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?

States a concrete verb and outcome ('Make a card member responsible') plus the fixed role type, which distinguishes it from add_card_member/remove_card_member among the siblings. It never explains why the tool is named 'update_role' while only ever setting type 2, but an agent can still tell what it does.

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 only guidance is procedural: 'Use the membership id returned by list_card_members', which points to the right upstream tool for obtaining member_id. There is no statement of when to use this versus kaiten_add_card_member or kaiten_remove_card_member, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given, so usage is implied rather than specified.

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