Update Member

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: partial updates are supported, and setting published to false hides the member from the public site. It also notes that lookup can be by id or slug.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and identifier, followed by essential usage details. No filler or redundancy.

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 is adequate for a simple update but omits return behavior and error scenarios, which is more critical given there is no output schema. It covers key usage and the publish toggle, but with 20 parameters, it leaves room for ambiguity around what the tool returns and whether updates are confirmed.

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 20 parameters and only 40% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but only mentions 'id', 'slug', and 'published'. Most parameters (e.g., 'city', 'firm', 'role', 'order', 'featured') are not explained beyond the schema, and the description does not clarify values or relationships for the undocumented fields.

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 a specific action ('Update a member') with a specific resource ('member') and identifies the identifier ('id or slug'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_member, delete_member, and list_members.

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 usage guidance: 'Send only the fields to change' and explains the effect of setting published to false. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the update context is unambiguous.

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