upservice_set_project_members

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

Description discloses the replacement (write) behavior, consistent with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds clarity that the operation is a full replacement, not incremental, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences: purpose, behavioral warning, and argument list. No fluff, well-organized, and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

Covers the essential: purpose, replacement behavior, parameter types, and return type. Annotations provide idempotency and non-destructive hints. Lacks details on error handling or authorization, but acceptable for this complexity level.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (e.g., 'Employee IDs (this REPLACES the current set; Upservice requires at least one)'). The description just restates them, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Replace the full set of members/guests for a project' with a specific verb (Replace) and resource (project members/guests). It distinguishes from sibling tools like upservice_set_project_managers and avoids confusion with append operations.

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?

Explicitly warns 'this REPLACES the existing membership list, it does not append to it', helping the agent understand when to use vs. avoid. No alternatives are mentioned, but the sibling list lacks an append-members tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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