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

Annotations indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness, and the description adds important behavioral context: owner-only restriction and the last-owner protection. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it could mention permissions more explicitly.

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?

Two short sentences convey the core purpose and key constraints without any filler. The most important information (action and restriction) is front-loaded.

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?

With full schema coverage, existing output schema, and provided annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, constraints, and parameter roles. It could briefly mention the scope of change (e.g., admin vs. owner), but overall it is sufficient.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including the role values 'member, admin, or owner'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 description clearly states the action ('Change a member's role'), the resource ('member's role'), and includes important constraints ('owner-only', 'Can't demote the last owner'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like colony_org_remove_member or colony_org_invite.

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 explicitly mentions that only owners can use this tool ('owner-only') and that demoting the last owner is prohibited. This provides clear guidance on when not to use it, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools for other scenarios.

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