update_vault_member

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for revealing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update a vault member role' – it does not disclose that the operation is a write, requires confirm=true, or what happens when confirm is false. It also does not mention any side effects or validation behavior, so an agent has little warning about the mutating nature beyond the word 'Update'.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, and the verb is front-loaded. It could include more context, but as far as wording economy goes it is efficient.

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 5 parameters (including a confirm flag that must be true), no output schema, and no annotations, the tool needs situational context. The description offers none: it does not explain how to identify the vault (shareId vs vaultName), that confirm is required for a write, or when to use this versus related member tools. An agent can call it technically from schema but cannot decide confidently when it is appropriate.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters including the confirm flag and the role enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it earns the baseline 3 for relying 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 states a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('vault member'), and the attribute being changed ('role'), which distinguishes it from siblings like update_vault, remove_ault_member, and update_item_member. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope conditions, so it is clear but not as rich as a 5.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description never says when to use this tool vs update_item_member, remove_vault_member, or share_vault. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no mention of the confirm flag, so agents get no direction for choosing among related member/vault tools.

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