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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement that the target's access level is immediately changed, whether promotion to owner is possible, or what permissions the caller needs for a destructive mutation.

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 words are concise in the trivial sense but constitute under-specification rather than efficient communication. There is no front-loaded scope, no constraint, and nothing that earns selectivity.

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-read-only mutation with three parameters, one enum, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. It does not say what changes, who may perform it, or how to identify the target user.

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 only 33%: only `org` is described (including its default), while `userId` and the `role` enum carry no explanation anywhere. The description compensates for none of this, so the agent must guess at userId format and the meaning of each role level.

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?

The verb+resource ('change ... role') is identifiable, but 'someone's' is vague and the description does nothing to distinguish this from sibling team tools like cloud_team_remove, cloud_team_invite, or cloud_team_cancel. An agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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 indication of when to use this versus cloud_team_remove or cloud_team_invite, no prerequisites (e.g. actor must be owner/admin), and no exclusions. The agent gets no routing signal beyond the tool name.

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