update_households_permissionsUpdate a household member's permissions to control their access for inviting, organizing, managing, and household management tasks.
Set Member Permissions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | ||
| canInvite | No | ||
| canManage | No | ||
| canOrganize | No | ||
| accept-language | No | ||
| canManageHousehold | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set Member Permissions,' offering no information about whether the update is partial or full, whether it requires special authorization, what side effects occur, or whether it is reversible.
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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single three-word phrase does not front-load any useful detail beyond what the tool name already communicates.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and a large set of sibling update tools, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the scope of the permissions, the meaning of the boolean fields, the required userId role, or any invocation context.
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%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the six parameters. An agent would have to guess the semantics of canInvite, canManage, canOrganize, canManageHousehold, and accept-language from field names alone, with zero clarification in the description.
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 'Set Member Permissions' is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name and title, adding no new specificity. It doesn't mention the household context, which permissions are affected, or how this tool differs from sibling permission/preference management tools.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_households_preferences or other household update tools. The description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate context for selecting it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.