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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and similar flags; the description adds critical behavioral context: self-escalation guard, no membership addition, no visibility widening, no team.delete access, and required auth level. It goes well beyond structured annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

Dense but mostly front-loaded: first sentence states purpose and contrasts the org-wide scope. Each subsequent sentence earns its place by listing a prerequisite, guard, scope, auth requirement, or return shape; minor redundancy around 'same narrower gate' prevents a 5.

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?

Complete for a rights-mutation tool: prerequisites, failure modes, permission gate, scope limitations, and return shape (same as team.get) are all stated. No output schema exists, so naming the return shape is important and handled.

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?

Input schema covers all params at 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by explaining exactly what is_admin true/false grants (add/remove-member, rename, describe rights) and that user_id must be an existing member. It doesn't add new format details for team_id/user_id, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 explicit verb 'Appoint or remove' and resource 'TEAM administrator,' then scopes it as 'per-team counterpart' to org-wide team:manage. It distinguishes itself from team.add_member/remove_member and team.delete, so an agent can infer what this operation is and isn't.

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 explicit prerequisites: target must already be a member via team.add_member, otherwise the tool 404s. It also states when the operation will refuse (self-promotion) and names the required permission (org-wide team:manage), contrasting with sibling team.add_member/team.remove_member.

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