Set Card Responsible Member

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds important context beyond that: the API only accepts type:2 here, there is no unset call, demotion requires remove-then-add, and the tool returns the updated user. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four purposeful sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and ending with the return value. Every sentence contributes either the core operation, a prerequisite, an alternative, or the response format; there is no filler.

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?

Complete for a small-mutation tool: it covers purpose, prerequisite, alternative pathways, parameter sources, and return value, and the schema plus annotations carry the rest. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Input schema already covers all 3 parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stressing that userId must reference an existing member and by clarifying the responsible role as type=2, reinforcing the prerequisite behavior for callers.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb 'Promote' and an exact resource: an existing card member to type=2 (responsible). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling member operations like kaiten_add_card_member and kaiten_remove_card_member.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (user must already be a member) and tells the agent to call kaiten_add_card_member first if needed. It also explains there is no unset-responsible endpoint and names the demotion sequence with sibling tools, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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