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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing propagation latency ('takes effect within a minute'), partial-update semantics ('a field left out keeps its value'), the destructive replacement behavior of agent_ids, the cross-parameter requirement, and the 403 error codes. This adds substantial context the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and keeps to one dense but purposeful paragraph; each clause (latency, partial update, agent replacement, 403s, scope) earns its place. Slightly packed, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description supplies the missing pieces: prerequisites, error conditions, replacement semantics, and scope (team:write). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains the all_agents:false -> agent_ids dependency and that agent_ids replace the teammate's existing agents, plus the role restrictions on keys. This is above the baseline the schema alone provides.

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 member's role or agents') and clarifies the operation as giving a teammate a new role, new agents, or both. An agent can easily tell this apart from siblings like update_agent (agent settings), invite_member (adds a teammate), and remove_organization_member (removes one).

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 clear usage context ('as the dashboard's Team page does') and explicit exclusions: owners must be managed in the dashboard (403 owner_only) and a key cannot change the creator's own access (403 self_edit). It does not name a sibling alternative for the excluded cases, but the when/when-not conditions are clear.

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