Update a team member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that it's a mutation. It adds the admin-only permission context. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral nuances (e.g., effect on existing sessions, whether partial updates are allowed, or response format), so it only partially goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and object, followed by a short permission note. No wasted words, perfectly scannable.

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 mutation tool with many optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It gives the core purpose and an admin restriction, but lacks information about return values, error behavior, or preconditions (e.g., user must exist). It's adequate for basic invocation but not fully 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 only 11%, so the description needs to compensate. It groups params into categories ('role, credentials, supervisors or profile limits') which adds some meaning, but it doesn't explain subtle relationships (e.g., between bpLimit and unlimitedBp) and omits canCreateBp and displayName. The grouping provides modest value, but not enough to reach a higher score.

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 explicitly states the action ('Change') and the resource ('a team member'), and lists the specific aspects being modified (role, credentials, supervisors, profile limits). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_team_user, delete_team_user, and list_team_users.

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 clear context with 'Admins only', indicating a permission prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the tool name and purpose make it obvious when to use it instead of create/delete/list team user tools. No exclusions are stated.

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