update_project_member

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

The experimental/untested warning and the disclosure that `identity` may be a mis-assumed path segment are genuine behavioral context not present in the annotations. However, the description does not say what else changes, whether unspecified fields are preserved, what permissions are needed, or what a success response contains. It does not contradict idempotentHint=true.

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 dominated by meta-commentary about an internal doc ('02-tools.md') and hedged speculation rather than front-loading the tool's function. The warning is worth keeping, but it should follow a one-line statement of what the tool does.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description omits effects, permissions, idempotency semantics, and return shape. The uncertainty caveat is useful but does not substitute for describing the operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does add real information about `identity` being sent as the member_id path segment. It says nothing about `project_id`, and `role` is only explained implicitly via its enum.

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 identifies the wrapped endpoint (PATCH /v2/projects/{id}/members/{member_id}), which implies mutating a member of a project, and the required `role` enum narrows it to a role change. It never states in plain language what the tool does, so the agent must infer verb and effect from the URL.

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 on when to use this rather than add_project_member, remove_project_member, or update_project. The only usage-adjacent content is a warning to 're-verify live,' which does not help an agent choose between siblings.

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