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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the risky profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never says the change may be privilege-granting (administrator), whether it revokes access, or what authorization is needed. The only added detail, the two role values, duplicates the schema enum.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key verb/resource lead. The parenthetical restating the enum values is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 destructive, non-idempotent privilege mutation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin: an agent cannot tell what permission is needed, whether the change is reversible, or what happens to the affected user's access.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It names the role values ('agent or administrator'), which mirrors the enum, and implies agent_id identifies the person in the account, giving partial semantics for both parameters without adding format or constraint detail.

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 (change) and resource (role of a person), and the 'in this account' qualifier separates it from sibling scope-limited tools like update_agents_in_team and update_agents_in_inbox. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative to route against.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. admin privilege required), and no distinction from invite_agent, remove_agent, update_agents_in_team, or update_agents_in_inbox. Usage context is only implied by the word 'account'.

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