update_membership

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: mutations run through an OpenProject-side validation pass and failures surface in a validation_errors field, which warns the agent that a preview can fail without applying anything.

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?

Two short sentences with the effect stated first and the validation behavior second; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse for a destructive mutation, but no sentence is wasted.

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 destructive 4-parameter mutation, the combination of explicit annotations, 100% schema coverage including the preview/confirm protocol, and the description's note about validation_errors covers what an agent needs to call it safely. Remaining gaps (permission requirements, notification behavior) are minor and partly addressed by the schema's notification_message field.

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% and each parameter is well documented, including that roles replaces all current roles and where role ids come from. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a project membership's roles") and narrows scope to roles only, which distinguishes it from create_membership/delete_membership. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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 hints at a preview-then-apply workflow ("The preview is validated by OpenProject"), which implies how to use the confirm flag, but that detail lives mostly in the schema. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus create_membership or delete_membership, nor prerequisites such as required permissions.

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