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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it states that authorization is required and that the change may revoke the teammate's editing permissions. It also discloses the hard constraint that the owner role is immutable, which no structured field conveys.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the behavioral consequences. No redundant restatement of the name or title; every clause adds signal.

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 and annotations that already carry the safety profile, the description covers the trigger, the prerequisite lookup, the authorization step, the side effect, and the owner-role restriction. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (member_id, role) are already fully documented in the schema, including the suggestion to call list-team-members first. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (change a teammate's role) and narrows the scope precisely: swap between configured editor and viewer roles. It also carves out an exception (team owner role cannot be changed), so an agent can distinguish this from general member management siblings.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition (user wants to change an existing teammate's role between editor and viewer) and a prerequisite workflow (use list-team-members to resolve names/emails and inspect available_roles). It implies but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, e.g. versus remove-team-member or invite-team-member.

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