update_space_members

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 but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are required, how conflicts are handled, what happens to existing members not included in the update, or what the response looks like. For a tool that modifies membership data, this lack of behavioral context is critical.

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 extremely concise—a single Japanese sentence—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It's structured appropriately for its length but under-specified.

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 (modifying space members with nested parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is only 50% (only 'space_id' has a description in Japanese, while 'members' and its nested properties lack descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's minimally in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'members' array should contain, how entity types differ, what 'isAdmin' or 'includeSubs' mean, or the expected format. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 'スペースメンバーを更新します' (Updates space members) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_space_members' in Japanese. It doesn't specify what aspect of space members is being updated (e.g., adding/removing members, changing permissions), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_space_guests' or 'get_space_members'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb+resource pairing.

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, when this tool is appropriate versus sibling tools like 'update_space_guests' or 'get_space_members', or any context for its application. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the tool name.

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