appwrite_update_membership

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether this replaces all existing roles or adds to them, what valid role values are, or what the operation returns. No mention of permissions required.

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?

Single sentence is appropriately brief, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be template leakage rather than valuable content. Front-loading the brackets adds cognitive overhead without value.

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 4 required parameters with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description is insufficient. A tool modifying access control should document role semantics, valid values, and the update strategy (replace vs. merge).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate. It mentions 'roles' which maps to one parameter, but provides no semantics for 'site', 'team_id', or 'membership_id', nor does it explain what data type 'roles' expects (array of strings? objects?).

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 the core action ('Update') and resource ('team membership roles'), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is metadata noise that reduces clarity. Lacks scope details (e.g., whether this replaces or appends roles) that would distinguish it from role management workflows.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus creating new memberships (appwrite_create_team_membership) or deleting them. Does not mention prerequisites like obtaining membership_id from list_team_memberships first.

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