update_team_membership

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the PATCH method and lists possible fields, but lacks details on required permissions, side effects (e.g., role changes affecting booking access), idempotency, constraints on fields (e.g., whether 'accepted' can be toggled), or handling of unknown fields (since 'fields' has additionalProperties: true). Behavioral context is minimal.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key examples. Structure is optimal for an AI agent to quickly parse.

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 presence of an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description provides a basic but adequate overview. However, considering the sensitive nature of updating team memberships (role changes, acceptance status) and the lack of annotations, additional context about permissions, immutability, or required preconditions would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds marginal value by listing 'disableImpersonation' which isn't in the schema example, but otherwise repeats information already present. It does not clarify the full range of allowed keys in the 'fields' object or constraints on values.

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 'Update a team membership' with the HTTP method PATCH and lists specific updatable fields (role, accepted, disableImpersonation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_team_membership, get_team_membership, and delete_team_membership.

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 implies use for modifying existing memberships via the PATCH method and example fields, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use create_team_membership, or prerequisites like needing the current membership state). No exclusions or when-not scenarios are mentioned.

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