members_update

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine policy context beyond that: the OWNER restriction and the null-permissions reset semantics, which an agent could not infer from annotations. It does not say whether omitted fields are left untouched or how invalid permission strings are handled.

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?

Three dense sentences: what it updates first, hard constraints second, permission semantics third. No filler and the most important restriction is not buried.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is minor: no statement about partial-update behavior or what a rejected update returns.

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 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema, including the null-reset behavior for permissions and the deactivation effect of isActive. The description largely restates those semantics rather than adding new ones, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (member) and enumerates exactly which attributes are mutable: role, active status, allowed company access, custom permissions. That enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from members_list and members_delete, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives real when-not guidance: cannot set role to OWNER and cannot modify the organization owner, which prevents a whole class of failed calls. It does not point to members_permissions_reference for valid permission strings or to invitations_create for non-members, so alternatives remain implicit.

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