ghost_update_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without specifying side effects such as replace semantics for labels/newsletters, whether the member must exist, modification of subscription status effects, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and directly states the primary purpose. It could be slightly better organized (e.g., noting replace semantics upfront), but it is efficient.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain return values, error handling, and critical behaviors like replace vs. merge. None of that is present. The agent lacks essential context to call the tool correctly beyond what the schema provides.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—it groups fields into 'information, labels, or subscription status' but does not clarify the replace behavior that the schema explicitly states for labels and newsletters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and names the resource ('an existing member') plus the affected facets ('information, labels, or subscription status'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ghost_update_post or ghost_update_tag. It also implicitly differentiates from ghost_add_member_labels by covering all member updates.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like ghost_add_member_labels for incremental label additions, nor does it clarify that this tool replaces label and newsletter lists. An agent has to infer usage from the schema alone.

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