taiga_memberships_update

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states the action 'change role' but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens if the membership or role ID is invalid. No output or error behavior is described. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extraneous words. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently, and every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple with only two fully documented parameters, and the description states its purpose. However, no usage guidance, side effects, or return format are described, and there are no annotations to fill these gaps. It is adequate for basic invocation but misses contextual details, making it a minimum-viable description.

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?

Input schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('Membership ID' and 'New role ID') with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The phrase 'change role' reaffirms the role parameter but does not provide additional semantics, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' with resource 'membership' and clarifies the action as 'change role', distinguishing it from sibling membership tools (create, delete, get, list) and other project tools. It clearly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for modifying an existing membership's role, nor does it contrast with create/delete/list. No prerequisites or context (e.g., need for admin permissions) are given.

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