sigma_update_member

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds a list of example properties but does not disclose side effects (e.g., setting isActive to false is effectively a deactivation), partial-update semantics, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict annotations, and the 'etc.' aligns with openWorldHint true, but the added context is thin.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and provides concrete examples. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a maximum score for conciseness.

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 the simplicity of the schema (2 params, open body) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks clarity on update semantics (e.g., whether all fields are optional, how isActive interacts with sigma_deactivate_member) and does not reference sibling tools for specific use cases. The description is sufficient for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for an agent to correctly construct the body object.

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 must compensate. It names some body properties (firstName, lastName, memberType, isActive) but leaves 'etc.' ambiguous. It does not explain whether body is a partial update or full replacement, nor does it describe member_id beyond what the name implies. The open-world nature of body is hinted but not fully specified.

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 member properties and lists specific fields (firstName, lastName, memberType, isActive). It is a specific verb+resource combination, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sigma_deactivate_member or sigma_change_member_email, which also modify member data.

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. Sibling tools such as sigma_deactivate_member, sigma_change_member_email, and sigma_update_team_members exist, but the description does not clarify that this tool is for general profile updates, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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