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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds value beyond them: 'suspend takes their access away without removing them' clarifies the destructive scope, and it discloses the confirmation-token gating flow and auth requirements. This is rich behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loads the operation semantics, then the memberId clarification, the confirmation workflow, and permissions. Dense but each sentence carries necessary information; there is no filler, though it is close to overpacked.

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 needn't be described. The description covers operation semantics, the idoimatic member-vs-user id distinction, the mandatory preview/confirmation flow, and permissions — everything an agent needs to invoke this mutation 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 low (17%), so the description must compensate: it explains the role parameter's use with change_role and, critically, that memberId is the member id from list_members rather than the user id. It also explains confirmationToken's purpose, though organizationId and requestId remain somewhat unaddressed (requestId is covered in 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+resource (change an organization member) and enumerates the three operations with their distinct effects: change_role, suspend, reactivate. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_members and invite_member.

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 'update_member' first, show the plan, and call this tool only after explicit user agreement. It also states the required permission (organization:manage) and owner role, leaving no ambiguity about prerequisites.

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