base_wework_exchange_project_managerReassign project manager role from an old user to a new user. Provide old and new user IDs to transfer project ownership.
Chuyển đổi vai trò quản lý dự án từ người cũ sang người mới.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| new_id | Yes | ||
| old_id | Yes | ||
| username | No | ||
| access_token | No | ||
| remove_assign | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the project manager role is transferred. It does not mention whether the old role is removed, whether assignments are affected, what permissions are required, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though the brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter detail.
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?
Despite an output schema, the tool has six parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no usage or behavioral guidance. The description alone is not enough for an agent to know what user, username, access_token, or remove_assign mean, making the tool inadequate to invoke correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It only implies that old_id and new_id correspond to the old and new people, but it does not explain the required user parameter, or the optional username, access_token, and remove_assign fields. This is insufficient for an agent to parameterize the call correctly.
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 'Chuyển đổi vai trò quản lý dự án từ người cũ sang người mới' states a specific action (transfer/exchange), a precise resource (project manager role), and the old-to-new direction. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_project_manager or add_project_manager, which involve assignment rather than exchange between two people.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as base_wework_set_project_manager or base_wework_exchange_project_member. The action is inferred from the name and description, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.