update_workspace_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only the role field is mutated, but says nothing about required permissions (likely workspace admin) or side effects, so it adds only modest value beyond structured fields.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the mutation scope and pre-check guidance front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, an output schema present, and full parameter documentation, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. The only missing piece is permission/precondition context for a role mutation.

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% and each parameter is documented, including the enum for role and the UUID constraint on user_id. The description merely restates the three parameter names, providing no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (update), a specific resource (a workspace member's role), and the key identifiers (workspace_id, user_id). It also scopes the tool ('Only the role changes here'), which separates it from update_workspace, add_workspace_member, and remove_workspace_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 tells the agent to call list_workspace_members or get_workspace_member first to confirm the current assignment, naming concrete alternatives. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g. self-role changes or admin-only permission requirements), leaving a small gap.

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