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

readOnlyHint=false already indicates mutation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: ownership changes require an owner, admins can only toggle admin↔member, and the last owner is protected. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate access restrictions.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the most important permission rules and a key business constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main operation, permission rules, and a critical invariant. An output schema exists so return values need not be described. One minor gap is that org_id/slug are optional in the schema and the description does not explicitly say one of them is required, but overall the tool is adequately specified.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining role constraints and who can set which role, which directly informs how to fill the 'role' parameter. It could be more explicit about needing one of org_id/slug, but the constraint semantics are valuable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a member's role in an organization'), and immediately distinguishes the operation from related tools like invite/remove/transfer by stating the permission model. The scope is clear even without inspecting the schema.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to change roles, with explicit permission constraints (owner vs admin) and an edge case (last owner cannot be demoted). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use it, but the usage context is strong.

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