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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing the authorization prerequisite, the concrete consequence ('may revoke that teammate's editing permissions'), and the owner-role immutability constraint. It does not cover reversibility or error/partial-failure behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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, zero filler, with the primary use case front-loaded and the destructive/constraint caveats following immediately. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, authorization, consequences, and the key constraint. The remaining minor gap is what a successful response returns, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema with the 'team owner role cannot be changed' constraint, which qualifies valid member_id/role combinations, though it adds nothing about member_id format or resolution.

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 (an existing teammate's role), with the concrete value space (editor/viewer). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like invite-team-member, remove-team-member, and list-team-members.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: 'when the user wants to change an existing teammate between configured editor and viewer roles.' The 'existing teammate' framing implicitly excludes invitations and removals, but no alternative tool is named as a routing fallback (e.g., for 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.