Actualizar miembro del estudio

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. Discloses scope requirement, but does not describe behavioral traits like mutability, idempotence, side effects, error states, or return values.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence front-loads purpose, second adds prerequisite. Structure is efficient and clear.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves major gaps: no explanation of how to identify a member, no behavior details (partial updates? required fields?), no success/error information. Incomplete for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. Description only mentions 'rol' and 'área' parameters, but does not explain studioId, memberId, or the meaning of the role enum values. Fails to add sufficient meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool changes role and/or area of a member (specific verb+resource). Differentiates from sibling tools like kairo_add_studio_member and kairo_remove_studio_member by focusing on updating existing member.

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?

Only mentions required scope 'write', but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs add/remove). No when-not-to-use information.

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