members_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutation behavior and important constraints (cannot set role to OWNER, cannot modify organization owner). The 'null to reset to role defaults' detail adds behavioral nuance. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to existing permissions when role changes, whether deactivation cascades to sessions, or whether allowedCompanies is additive or replacement.

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 sentences, efficient, no filler. The description front-loads the core purpose and packs constraints efficiently. Slightly denser than a two-sentence ideal but every sentence carries meaning.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers the action, constraints, role enum, and permissions reset semantics. It's adequate. Small gaps on default behavior for omitted optional fields and whether allowedCompanies replaces the list, but these are not critical for a member update tool.

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%, with each of the 5 parameters already documented in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying the permissions null-reset behavior and enumerating valid roles, but these largely restate schema info (the role enum matches schema, the null option is already in the schema's anyOf). This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage where description need not duplicate.

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 verb (update), the resource (a member), and enumerates the specific fields that can be modified (role, active status, allowed company access, custom permissions). It distinguishes from siblings like members_delete and members_list through its specific verb+resource+field list.

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 guidance on role constraints ('Cannot change role to OWNER or modify the organization owner') and how the permissions parameter behaves (array vs null to reset). While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the restrictions and parameter semantics give the agent enough context to use it correctly among the members_* siblings.

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