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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the authorization requirement (owner-only), which the annotations do not carry. It stops short of saying what happens to the member's previous role or whether an owner can be demoted, which matters for a destructive-flagged tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the constraint second. Nothing is wasted.

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?

The output schema exists so return values need not be described, and parameters are largely covered by the schema. The remaining gap is consequence disclosure: for a mutation flagged destructive and idempotent, the description says nothing about overwriting an existing role or what admin grants.

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 75% and the schema itself documents team, member, the role enum, and even the unusual 'why' parameter, so the schema does most of the work. The description only restates that the role is member or admin, adding nothing beyond the enum.

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?

Specific verb (assign) plus resource (team-scoped member/admin role), with the allowed role values named. The word 'team-scoped' implicitly separates it from the workspace_member_set_role sibling, but it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

States a hard prerequisite ('Only the current team owner may assign roles'), which is genuinely usage-relevant. However, it offers no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and does not route the agent to team_add_member, team_remove_member, or workspace_member_set_role.

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