update_space_guests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' but doesn't clarify if this is a destructive overwrite, additive operation, or requires specific permissions. No information on rate limits, error handling, or response format is included, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loading of critical details (e.g., the nature of 'update'), which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the brevity.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error cases, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with 'space_id' and 'guests' documented in the schema but no additional details. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints (e.g., email format validation), or usage examples. With two parameters and partial schema coverage, the baseline is 3 as the schema does some work, but the description fails to compensate for 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 'スペースのゲストメンバーを更新します' (Updates guest members of a space) clearly states the action (update) and resource (space guest members), but it's vague about what 'update' entails—whether it adds, removes, replaces, or modifies guests. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'add_guests' by implying a different operation, but the distinction isn't explicit, leaving ambiguity in purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing space access), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'add_guests' or 'update_space_members', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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