update_project_member

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly explains the replacement semantics ('any role not in it is removed') and clarifies a common pitfall (membership_id vs user ID). While it doesn't mention permissions or error conditions, it covers the most critical behavioral aspect—complete replacement—making it reasonably transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: a concise one-line summary, a clear explanation of the replacement behavior, and a simple Args list. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The description effectively covers the core semantics and parameter nuances for a two-parameter update tool. The output schema (though not shown) likely documents return values, so the description need not do so. It doesn't explicitly state edge cases like an empty role_ids list, but that is logically implied by 'complete list'. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.

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 schema has no descriptions, but the description compensates thoroughly. It explains that membership_id is the 'membership_id' field from list_project_members (not the user's ID) and that role_ids is the new complete list of role IDs, not an incremental update. This adds significant semantic value beyond the raw schema types.

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 tool's function: 'Replace a member's roles.' The verb 'replace' and resource 'member's roles' are specific and unambiguous. It distinctively differentiates from sibling tools like add_project_member and remove_project_member, which handle adding/removing memberships entirely.

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 clear context: this tool is for setting the complete list of roles for a member, explicitly noting that the list replaces existing roles. It implies the appropriate usage scenario (when you want to define the exact role set) without explicitly naming alternatives, but the context is sufficient to guide tool selection.

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