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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing real side effects: a viewer's open conversations return to the queue, and the workspace always retains an owner. It omits whether the change is immediate/irreversible in other respects or what happens to in-flight assignments for other roles.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two most important behavioral constraints. No preamble or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and covering annotations, the description supplies the key side effects and the owner-invariant. Remaining gaps are permission requirements and error behavior for the last-owner case, which are minor given the annotation coverage.

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% and the role enum is fully documented in the schema, so the description is not required to carry parameter meaning. It adds no additional semantics about userId or role, 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 (change) and resource (a teammate's role), which is readily distinguished from invite_teammate, remove_teammate, and list_team in the sibling set. It is clear, but it never explicitly names those neighboring tools, so differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no prerequisites (e.g., which roles may perform this change, whether a teammate must first be invited). The only workflow hint, 'The teammate id from list_team,' lives in the schema rather than the description.

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