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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: guards, audit-log row, and role-change notification. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description confirms it is a write operation with specific constraints, enhancing transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence captures the core action, subsequent sentences add essential details (guards, audit, notification) without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value.

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 the tool's complexity (role changes with guards), the description covers key behaviors and context. Output schema exists, so return values are unneeded. It could explicitly mention moderation permissions, but the guards imply it adequately.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description reiterates the role parameter's meaning ('moderator' promotes, 'member' demotes) but does not add significant new information about other parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Promote a member to moderator, or demote a moderator back to member', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_ban_user and colony_invite_moderator by focusing on role changes, aligning with the web members page use-case.

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 provides context by mentioning guards (must be a member, admin targets need founder-gated demote, can't demote last moderator) and references the web members page, indicating when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives.

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