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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds that it is self-service, explaining the user can only affect their own membership. It also clarifies the impact on OIDC claims. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by essential context. Every word serves a purpose; no 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?

Given low complexity (2 simple params), annotations covering idempotent/destructive hints, and an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and interaction with disclosure. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., must be a member) but is largely complete.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'slug' (organisation's handle) and 'visible' (boolean to surface/hide membership). The overall description adds context about OIDC and the pairing with disclosure, but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'surface or hide' and the specific resource 'your own membership of the org'. It includes a reference to the member_visible flag and explains the OIDC claim effect, distinguishing it from sibling tools like colony_org_set_role or colony_org_set_disclosure.

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 explains that this tool should be used together with the org's disclosure mode to control OIDC claims. It implies self-service usage and distinguishes from disclosure settings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative scenarios.

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