update_member

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

Discloses that partial updates are supported and only passed fields are updated, which is key behavioral information. With no annotations, more details (e.g., authorization, side effects) would improve transparency, but the description covers the core behavior.

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 very concise at three sentences, front-loading the main purpose and immediately giving concrete usage examples. No superfluous content.

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 presence of an output schema (status unknown), the description omits return value details, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., member must exist). Sibling tools like create_member are not differentiated in terms of when to use which. Adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds general context about partial updates and gives examples for 'phone' and 'email', but does not describe individual parameters (first_name, last_name, notes, member_id). This leaves parameter meanings partially explained.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing member'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_member and delete_member. The mention of 'partial updates' adds specificity.

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?

Provides explicit usage examples ('change Jane phone number', 'fix typo in member 12345 email') that help the agent understand when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like create_member for new members.

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