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

The description notes that authorization is required and that the team owner role cannot be changed, adding useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also explicitly labels the action as state-changing, consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary use case and packs constraints efficiently.

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 role-update tool, the description covers the purpose, usage context, authorization requirement, and an important restriction (owner cannot be changed). No output schema is needed for this action.

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?

Both parameters are described meaningfully: member_id is identified as a numeric user/member ID with a pointer to list-team-members for resolving names/emails, and role is explained as a configured destination role key with instruction to inspect available_roles. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the action (change/update role), the resource (existing team member), and the specific scope (between editor and viewer roles). It distinguishes from sibling tools like invite-team-member and remove-team-member by focusing on role 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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('when the user wants to change an existing teammate') and provides a prerequisite by referencing list-team-members to inspect available roles. This gives clear guidance on the appropriate context.

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