redmine_membership_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It reveals only that the operation is an update/PUT; it does not disclose required permissions, whether the update replaces or merges the membership object, side effects, or response characteristics. The HTTP method adds a little context, but not enough.

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 text is concise and includes the endpoint, with no wasted words. However, it is so sparse that it under-serves an agent; the single sentence earns its place but does not form a well-rounded tool description.

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 mutation tool with nested parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, this description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what to put in the membership object, what the response will look like, or what preconditions exist.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The input schema shows 'id' and a free-form 'membership' object, but the description does not explain required fields within membership, accepted values, or the relationship between the parameters. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update membership' followed by the PUT endpoint. This makes it distinguishable from sibling membership create/delete/list tools by action, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or define what 'membership' refers to beyond the endpoint.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool vs. redmine_membership_create or redmine_membership_delete. The verb 'Update' implies existing memberships only, but the description never states that an id for an existing membership is required or that create should be used for new memberships.

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