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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Changes nothing' is a useful non-mutation guarantee, but it does not explain required permissions, what the preview returns, or whether the preview can fail for invalid role changes.

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, front-loaded with the dry-run nature and followed by the no-change guarantee. No filler; appropriate for a simple preview tool.

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?

Because there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the preview result and parameter meaning. It covers only the high-level dry-run behavior, leaving material gaps for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and two required parameters, yet the description never mentions user_id or admin. The agent can infer from the tool name/title that 'admin' likely controls promotion/demotion, but the boolean direction and user_id meaning are not stated.

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 identifies a specific operation — a dry-run of set_workspace_member_role — and distinguishes it from the mutating sibling. The title adds that it previews promoting/demoting an admin, though the description itself relies on the sibling name for the resource.

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?

By calling itself a dry-run and saying 'Changes nothing,' it implies use before applying set_workspace_member_role. It names the alternative but does not explicitly state when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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