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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with concrete preconditions: a mandatory confirmationToken, an explicit user-approval gate, and the permission and owner-role requirements. This is real behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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 dense sentences, each carrying load — role options, identifier source, then the confirmation/permission workflow. Front-loaded with purpose, though the confirmation sequence is long enough that it slightly crowds the opening.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described; the description instead covers the things structured fields cannot — the preview/confirm protocol, permissions, and identifier semantics. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate: it clarifies that memberId comes from list_members rather than being a user id, lists the role enum, and explains the confirmationToken's purpose and how to obtain it. organizationId is left implicit, and requestId is already documented in 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?

States a specific verb ('give ... another role'), the resource (organization member), and enumerates the three role values. It also disambiguates the target identifier from a sibling concept (user id), so an agent knows exactly what it does.

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?

Explicitly describes the required workflow: call preview_operation with tool 'change_member_role' and these arguments, show the plan, and only call this tool after the user agrees. It also names the permission (organization:manage) and the required caller role (owner), leaving nothing to inference.

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