Base Wework Exchange Project Member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a transfer occurs but does not clarify whether members are removed from the old project, whether the new project's existing members are replaced or appended, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur.

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 filler. It front-loads the action and key entities, making the core purpose immediately understandable despite being too sparse in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 6 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description is under-specified. It conveys the basic transfer intent but does not explain important optional behavior like remove_assign, authentication via access_token, or expected outcomes, even though an output schema exists.

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. It gives some semantic context by mapping old_id to the old project, new_id to the new project, and users to the list of members. However, it does not explain the optional parameters username, access_token, or remove_assign, leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly states a verb ('Chuyển' – transfer), a resource (member list), and direction (old project to new project). It is specific enough to understand the core action, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related sibling tools like base_wework_set_project_member or base_wework_exchange_project_manager.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites, constraints, or cases where it should not be used. The operation is implied by the description, but no selection criteria or exclusions are provided.

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