update_member_access_level

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that dry_run defaults to true, which is important behavioral context. But it does not describe what happens when dry_run is false, any required permissions, or the nature of the mutation (e.g., immediate or reversible).

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 sentences with no extraneous words. The most important information (action and default dry_run) is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details about the typical workflow (e.g., first run with dry_run, then set to false after user confirmation) and what the tool returns. More context would help the agent use it correctly without relying solely on the schema.

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 have descriptions. The description only repeats the dry_run default, which is already in the schema. It adds no new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it changes a member's access level on a group or project. The verb 'change' and resource 'member access level' are specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_group_member (adds) or remove_member (removes).

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?

Highlights that dry_run is true by default, guiding the agent to first preview changes before executing. This provides implicit when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like adding or removing members.

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