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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds crucial behavioral details: roles cascade to descendants, 'inherit' clears explicit role, team owners cannot be downgraded. It also states the return value (effective_role). This fully informs the agent about side effects and constraints.

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 yet comprehensive, with every sentence adding value. It is front-loaded with the main action and then adds details about behavior, requirements, and return value. No superfluous text.

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 tool that manages permissions with inheritance and specific constraints, the description covers all necessary context: cascading behavior, the meaning of 'inherit', required roles for the caller, and what is returned. No output schema exists, but the description fills that gap by stating the return value (effective_role).

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 clear parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds extra context: explains that 'inherit' is used to delete an explicit role, that container_id must be a team container, and user_id must be a team member. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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: 'Set or clear a team member's role on a team container.' It specifies the verb (set/clear), resource (role on container), and distinguishes from sibling tools like containers-create or containers-get. Very clear purpose.

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 when to use this tool (to set or clear a role), provides context about behavior (cascading roles), and lists prerequisites (caller must have admin role, container must be team container, user must be a member of the same team). It does not explicitly name alternatives but implies that for other container operations, use other tools.

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