manage_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a specific error behavior (Feishu rejects with code 9499 on ID type mismatch) and advises explicit member_id_type passing, which adds valuable context beyond the schema. It does not cover permissions or side effects, but the disclosed API rejection behavior is significant.

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, perfectly front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a targeted caveat. Every word adds value; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core action, the tricky parameter coupling, and a practical error case. It could mention what a successful response looks like or permissions required, but given the schema richness and focused scope, it is adequately complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between member_ids and member_id_type, the default open_id, and the consequence of misalignment (error 9499). This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions and clarifies how parameters interact.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: "Add or remove members from a group chat." This immediately identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_members (read-only) and manage_task_members (different resource).

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 description implies usage (to manage group chat members) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_members or manage_task_members. The warning about member_id_type provides operational guidance, but not a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use framework.

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