tc_update_project_user

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description reveals a critical write-enable requirement (TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1) and specifies the return format as the updated member object with {'updated': true}. No contradiction with annotations; this adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a prerequisite line, a clean parameter list, and a return-value note. Every sentence adds information without 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 mutation tool, the description covers the required write-enable flag, parameter semantics, and return value. Combined with existing annotations and output schema, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters, including the allowed values for role ('ADMIN' or 'USER') and clarifying that user_id is a member ID, not an email.

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' with a clear resource 'project member's role' and provides an example (USER → ADMIN), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tc_add_project_user or tc_remove_project_user by focusing specifically on role modification.

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 states the prerequisite 'Requires TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1' and instructs that user_id should be obtained from tc_list_project_members, not the email. This gives clear context for use, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or negative conditions.

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