Update Project Member

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

The description discloses two important behavioral traits: the partial-patch semantics and the automatic handling of the optimistic-concurrency `version` field. These add significant context beyond what annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already convey, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two concise sentences, immediately stating the primary purpose and then adding a crucial usage caveat. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple update tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances (partial patch, version auto-handling). It does not mention potential permissions or side effects like audit logging for `is_admin`, but the schema already documents that, so the description is reasonably complete in context.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for `id` and `is_admin`, covering 67% of parameters. The `role` parameter is left undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so it does not improve on the schema's already decent coverage.

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 identifies the tool's function: updating an existing membership. It explicitly states 'partial patch — only include the fields you want to change', which distinguishes this update operation from a full replacement or creation, and the title 'Update Project Member' reinforces the resource being acted upon.

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 clearly implies the appropriate use case (updating existing memberships) and provides a specific instruction about not passing the `version` field, which is valuable operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like `membership_create` or `membership_delete`, so it stops short of full exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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