update_virtual_member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing partial-update semantics and that the updated entity is returned. However, it never explains why the operation is flagged destructive or what data may be lost, leaving the most important behavioral question unanswered.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: purpose and fields, the partial-update rule, and the prerequisite lookup. Front-loaded and free of 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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the schema fully documents all seven parameters. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained destructive annotation on what reads as a partial update.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a mapping hint by calling one_word a "short description" and reinforces the uuid-vs-id constraint, but it omits shows_birthday entirely even though birthday is mentioned, so it does not materially expand on 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 names a specific verb ("Change") and resource (a virtual member), and enumerates the mutable fields plus the return behavior. It distinguishes itself from the related read tool by pointing to get_calendar_virtual_members for the uuid, though it never explicitly contrasts with create_virtual_member or delete_virtual_member.

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?

"Only provide the fields to change" tells the agent this is a partial update, and the uuid sourcing instruction (with the "not the id" warning) gives a concrete prerequisite workflow. No explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the lookup tool are stated, so it falls short of a full 5.

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