acc_update_project_user

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

The description discloses the automatic email-to-user-id resolution behavior, which is valuable beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint: false). It also implicitly confirms the mutation nature. However, it does not mention potential side effects like role_ids replacing existing roles, though that is covered in the schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with the main purpose front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the full schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and the clear description, the context is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The description could additionally mention side effects or permissions, but these are partially addressed by the schema and annotations, so the overall package is strong.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds the behavioral detail that email is resolved automatically, which enhances understanding of the 'user' parameter beyond the schema's type enumeration. It also summarizes the parameters, but mostly mirrors the schema, giving only modest additional semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb 'Change' and clearly identifies the resource ('a project member') and the scope ('company, roles or product access'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like acc_add_project_user and acc_remove_project_user by focusing on modifying an existing member, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 use when you need to update an existing project member's attributes, and the email resolution note adds practical context. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use acc_add_project_user instead), so it lacks the explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance that would earn a 5.

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