kaiten_update_card_member_role

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. Given destructiveHint=true, the description should clarify what is destroyed — e.g. whether the previously responsible member is demoted — but it says nothing, and it does not explain permission requirements or side effects.

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 and its effect front-loaded, and the id-sourcing hint immediately after. No filler, though 'Returns card_id, user_id and type' is wasted given an output schema already exists.

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 output schema means return values need not be restated (they are, redundantly). The remaining gap is behavioral: for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation on card membership, the description omits what happens to the prior responsible member and any permission constraints, leaving the agent under-informed on consequences.

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 load, and it does disambiguate the critical parameter: 'member_id' is actually the membership id from list_card_members, not a user id. It also explains that type 2 means 'responsible'. card_id is left unaddressed but is self-evident.

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 specific verb+resource combination ('Make a card member responsible') plus the concrete resulting role value (type 2), which separates it from kaiten_add_card_member (adds) and kaiten_remove_card_member (removes). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

It routes the agent to the correct source for one input ('Use the membership id returned by list_card_members'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when this role change is appropriate versus when not, nor does it name the alternative member-management siblings, so usage remains implied.

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