sigma_change_member_email

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

The description adds only the HTTP method and endpoint, but no behavioral details such as whether the change is permanent, whether email uniqueness is enforced, or any permission requirements. Annotations indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes the relevant endpoint. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given that this is a mutation with no output schema details shown, the description is too sparse. It lacks context about side effects, alternative tools, or necessary conditions, making it minimally complete for a simple tool but inadequate for an agent to fully understand the operation's scope.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it only implies member_id and new_email from context. It does not specify format, validation, or constraints, relying solely on the self-explanatory parameter names.

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 action ('Change a member's email address') and the specific resource, distinguishing it from more generic member operations like sigma_update_member. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or postconditions. It simply states the operation without context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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