aras_manage_membership

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the write operation (add/remove) and explains the consequence of granting a role, which is the core behavior. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, idempotency, or error conditions, but the mutation itself is transparently described.

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 concise sentences that front-load the operation before providing a concrete example. No filler or redundant information; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the specific use case (role granting), and the meaning of the relevant parameters. It lacks any mention of permissions or authentication needed for the operation, but the low complexity and clear schema make this acceptable.

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?

The schema describes two of three parameters directly ('gruppo' and 'membro'), and the description's example maps them to meaningful values ('Aras PLM' and a user). The 'azione' parameter has no description but its enum values are self-explanatory, and the description explicitly references both add and remove actions. This offsets the 67% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the operation: adds or removes an identity from a group, with a concrete example of role granting. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aras_create_group or aras_grant_permission, so it stops short of 5.

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 phrase 'E' il modo di concedere un ruolo' implies when to use the tool (for role assignment), and the example clarifies a realistic scenario. However, there are no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of pairing with aras_get_identity_members for verification. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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