update_project_team_member

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the update is destructive, permission requirements, reversible, or side effects. The agent is left to guess the tool's implications.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, making it quick to parse.

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 has 3 parameters (with one ambiguous), no annotations, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the role update mechanism, the structure of fields_json, or what the output contains. The agent lacks key information for correct invocation.

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 meaning beyond parameter names. The 'fields_json' parameter is opaque; it likely specifies the role but is not explained. The description does not compensate for the missing 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and clearly identifies the resource ('team member') and scope ('on a project'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_team_member_to_project, remove_project_team_member, and get_project_team_member.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The one sentence offers no usage strategy.

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