rybbit_update_member_site_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about required roles/scopes and the meaning of memberId. However, it does not disclose return values, error behavior, or the conditional dependency between hasRestrictedSiteAccess and siteIds, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded with the action, and no wasted words. Every clause adds value: the action, the memberId clarification, and the required permissions.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisites, and a key ID nuance. However, it misses important contextual details: the logical relationship between hasRestrictedSiteAccess and siteIds (siteIds should be provided when restricting), and what the tool returns or does on success. Without annotations or output schema, this could leave an agent uncertain.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter meanings. The description reinforces the memberId nuance (from rybbit_get_organization_members, not user ID), which is helpful, but does not add material semantics 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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Restrict or unrestrict which sites an organization member can access.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like rybbit_add_organization_member (adding members) and rybbit_update_user_traits (updating user traits) by focusing on site access for existing members.

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?

Provides explicit context by stating 'Requires org admin/owner role and the org:write scope' and clarifying that memberId is the membership record ID from rybbit_get_organization_members, not the user ID. This helps the agent know when to use it and what prerequisites must be met, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools.

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