update_workspace_member

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it says nothing about what fields are mutable, permission requirements, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but contributes nothing.

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?

'Update Member' is two words with no structure or front-loading. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as it omits all essential information.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with ambiguous role/seat parameters and no output schema, the description is essentially absent. An agent cannot determine what the tool updates, what prerequisites exist, or what effects it has.

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 75%: email is described, but is_locked has no description and workspace_role/workspace_seat_type share an identical ambiguous description ('Seat types for workspace members.'). The description itself adds no parameter meaning, leaving the role-vs-seat ambiguity unresolved.

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 'Update Member' merely restates the tool name and title. It does not specify which member attributes can be updated or how it differs from siblings like add_member, remove_member, or invite_user.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. With roughly 200 sibling tools including add_member and remove_member, an agent receives zero help selecting this tool.

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