guests_update

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'update' without explaining side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing settings. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Update') and clearly identifies the resource, making it easy to parse.

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 tool with one mutable boolean parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description could offer more context about what 'details' means or post-update effects. It does not fully compensate for missing structured metadata.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the schema handles parameter semantics. The description adds little beyond categorizing the parameters as 'permissions or details', which does not materially improve understanding.

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 updates a guest's permissions or details in the workspace, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like guests_invite or guests_remove. However, 'permissions or details' is somewhat broad and does not specify the exact updatable field (e.g., can_edit_tags), so it falls short of maximal specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, excluded scenarios, or relationship to sibling tools like guests_attach or guests_update. The description only states what it does, not the usage context.

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