Update a member directory or member space filter control

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the write/destructive nature is covered. The description adds the confirmation gate and 'Changes community state', which is mildly useful, but says nothing about reversibility, partial-update behavior, or what an unconfirmed call does. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is an adequate 3.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the constraint. No filler, though it is perhaps terse for a 10-parameter destructive mutation.

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 10-parameter, nested-object, destructive mutation with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not address partial updates, whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, or the consequence of an unconfirmed call. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, so it borders on adequate, but the behavioral context for a destructive tool is underdeveloped.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters including the confirm semantics and nested payload. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('filter control') with the two scoping contexts (member directory vs member space). It is clearly differentiable from create_filter_control/delete_filter_control/get_filter_control by resource, though it does not name those siblings 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?

Implies usage through the confirm requirement ('requires confirm=true for the user-requested action'), which tells the agent when confirmation is appropriate, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance against sibling tools.

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