update_membership

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the nickname length constraint (1-50 characters), which is useful, but doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clean parameter breakdown. Every sentence earns its place—no wasted words, and the structure makes it easy to scan quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks information about return values, error handling, or side effects, which would be needed for full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: group_id identifies the target group, and nickname specifies the new value with a length constraint. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details like what constitutes a valid group_id.

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 specific action ('Update your nickname') and resource ('in a group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_group (which modifies group settings) or update_user (which modifies user profile). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 context by specifying 'your nickname,' suggesting it's for modifying the caller's own nickname rather than others'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like update_user (which might handle nickname changes in a different context) or provide clear exclusions for when not to use it.

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