update_card_member_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Change a card member's role') without revealing potential side effects, permission requirements, failure conditions (e.g., if the member is not found), or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 immediately states the core action and clarifies the parameter significance. There is no redundant information or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. However, it omits important context such as whether the member must already exist, what other type values are valid, or any error behavior. Given the lack of annotations, the description could be more complete, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions (card_id, user_id, type), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new information beyond what the schema provides—the 'type 2 = responsible' note is already present in the schema's description for 'type'. Thus, the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('card member's role'), and clarifies the meaning of the 'type' parameter (2 = responsible). This differentiates it from sibling tools like add_card_member, remove_card_member, and list_card_members, so an agent can easily identify when this tool is appropriate.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state prerequisites such as the member already existing on the card, nor does it mention that this is only for modifying roles and not for adding/removing members. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling names, which is insufficient.

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