beel_patch_member

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly defines the allowed role transitions (ADMIN ↔ MEMBER), the last-owner restriction, and that ownership transfer is handled elsewhere. This informs the agent about edge cases and operational constraints not covered by annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core action, then provides necessary constraints and context, and ends with the endpoint. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a simple patch operation.

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 simple role-change operation, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the allowed values, the crucial ownership edge case, and the alternative pathway. It doesn't mention return values, but there is no output schema to explain, and the operation is straightforward. The annotations further cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. Minor omissions like error messages or permissions are not critical for basic invocation.

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 description adds meaning to the `account_role` parameter by specifying it can only be `ADMIN` or `MEMBER` and clarifying that `OWNER` is not accepted. While the schema's `AccountRole` definition already explains the enum and its non-assignability for setting, the description reinforces it and adds the 'between ADMIN and MEMBER' simplification. For `account_id` and `member_id`, the schema provides adequate descriptions, so the description doesn't need to elaborate. Given schema coverage of 67% and the added semantic clarity, this exceeds the baseline.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Changes a member's `account_role` between `ADMIN` and `MEMBER`'. It identifies the resource (member) and the endpoint. It distinguishes itself from `beel_put_owner` by clarifying that OWNER is not assignable here and that ownership transfer is a separate operation. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states that OWNER is not assignable here and directs the user to the dedicated `PUT /v1/accounts/{account_id}/owner` endpoint for ownership transfer. It also notes the last OWNER cannot be demoted, giving a clear constraint for decision-making.

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