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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes beyond them with a real business rule ('the last admin cannot be demoted'), the authorization requirement, and the blast radius ('takes effect in web and MCP'). It does not say what the response looks like or what happens when the last-admin guard trips, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loaded with the constraint that matters most ('Admin only') followed by the action, and each sentence carries information. Four short sentences with no filler, though the closing web/MCP sentence is tangential to invocation.

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 destructive 4-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, target role semantics, and the key guard condition. It leaves failure behavior and the confirm workflow unstated, which is a minor gap given the schema documents confirm.

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 25% – only 'confirm' is documented in the schema. The description clarifies the meaning of the two role values (admin gets invite/remove/manage rights; member is the baseline), but says nothing about user_id or workspace_id scope, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Promote a member to Admin or demote an admin to Member') and enumerates the only two target states. An agent can immediately separate it from invite_workspace_members or remove_workspace_member, which change membership rather than role.

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?

'Admin only' gives an explicit prerequisite and the promote/demote framing makes the use case clear, but no alternative tool is named and no exclusion ('use remove_workspace_member to revoke access entirely') is offered. Clear context, no routing guidance.

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