Update a gliding club member's name, phone, and roles; roles replace the full list, and confirm=true applies changes after a preview.
Modifie un membre (prénom, nom, téléphone, rôles). roles REMPLACE la liste complète des rôles (identifiants, voir get_roles). Sans confirm=true : aperçu seulement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| roles | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| phone_number | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: that 'roles' REPLACES the entire role list rather than appending, and that omitting confirm=true yields a preview/dry-run only. It still omits what happens to fields left unspecified and any permission requirements.
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?
A single tight sentence plus two clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every clause adds information (fields, REPLACE semantics, confirm gate) with no redundancy.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical role-replacement and preview behaviors but leaves permission requirements, handling of omitted fields, and response shape unaddressed.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the modifiable fields (prénom, nom, téléphone, rôles) mapping to schema properties, clarifies roles takes identifiers, and explains the confirm flag's effect. Only user_id and input formats remain undocumented.
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+resource ('Modifie un membre') and enumerates the fields touched (prénom, nom, téléphone, rôles), which clearly separates it from create_user and delete_user among the siblings. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the mutation verb makes the intent unambiguous.
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?
Implies a workflow by pointing to get_roles for role identifiers and by describing the confirm=true gate, but never states when this tool should be used instead of alternatives or what prerequisites (permissions) are required. Usage context is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.