update_project_collaborator

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

The annotation indicates idempotentHint is true, suggesting repeated calls have the same effect. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond this, such as permissions required or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.

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 that the tool updates collaborator permissions, the description lacks context about what kinds of updates are possible (e.g., modifying liveControl and write rights). The presence of an output schema and annotations does not fully compensate for this gap.

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?

The tool description does not describe any parameters, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each nested field (projectId, collaboratorUserId, liveControl, write). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'collaborator information in a project', distinguishing it from create and delete sibling tools. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, leaving some 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_project_collaborator or delete_project_collaborator. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., collaborator must already exist) or 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.