anon_patch_members_user_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the required permission scope (member:manage) and the auth behavior that the project is derived from the API key, which is meaningful operational context for a mutation endpoint.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines: action first, then the permission gate, then the endpoint and the negative constraint about projectId. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 destructive mutation with an output schema absent (nothing to describe on returns), the description covers the action, the permission requirement, and the path shape. It is nearly complete, falling short only on the domain of valid role values and error/failure behavior.

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%, so the description must carry semantics, and the nested schema exposes only 'userId' and 'roleName' with no descriptions. The description usefully clarifies that projectId must NOT be passed (preventing an error), but leaves the meaning/valid values of userId and roleName to inference, so compensation is only partial.

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 and resource ('修改成员角色' / modify member role) plus the exact endpoint, so an agent knows precisely what is being changed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like anon_delete_members_user_id or anon_patch_roles_role_name, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite ('需 member:manage 权限'), which tells the agent when the call will be permitted, and clarifies the project is implicit. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the delete-member or role-patch siblings, so usage is only implied.

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