bitrix_update_project_member_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation requires confirm=true, which is useful confirmation-related behavior. It does not disclose side effects such as overwriting the previous role, permission requirements, or restrictions on changing an owner role.

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 two short sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second adds the critical confirm=true prerequisite. There is no redundant or filler 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?

The description is adequate for a simple role-update operation, and the schema fully documents parameter meanings. However, with no annotations or output schema, it does not explain how to choose between the optional groupId and project parameters, nor does it describe what happens after a successful update or what the tool returns.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; 'Требует confirm=true' restates what the confirm parameter already documents. It does not clarify the relationship between optional groupId and project, which could be ambiguous when calling the tool.

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: changing the role of an existing Bitrix24 project/workgroup member. It names the resource (project member), the operation (update role), and the qualifier 'existing' helps distinguish it from adding or removing members. No sibling tool updates member roles, so there is minimal ambiguity.

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 by saying 'existing participant' and 'role', which indicates it is not for adding/removing members and is for role changes. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like add/remove member tools, nor does it describe when-not-to-use conditions beyond the word 'existing'.

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