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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: an owner-only authorization requirement and a mandatory two-phase preview-then-confirm flow with the affected person's consent. It stops short of saying the previous role is replaced/lost, which would be the final useful detail.

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 zero filler: purpose, authorization, then the preview/confirm rule. The most operationally important constraint (confirmer semantics) is front-loaded and easy to act on.

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, owner-restricted mutation with no output schema, the description covers permissions, the safe preview path, and the consent gate, and all four parameters are documented in the schema. Only the shape of the preview response is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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%, and the enum values plus the confirmer preview/execute semantics are already spelled out in the property descriptions. The description restates the confirmer behavior rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Passe un membre de l'équipe en employé ou en responsable") and names the two allowed target states, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like inviter_membre or retirer_membre, but the purpose is inherently distinct.

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?

It states the prerequisite ("Réservé au propriétaire") and prescribes the workflow: preview with confirmer=false first, then act only "après accord explicite de la personne." It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the when/how guidance is concrete.

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