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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation/destructive nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining what 'set' and 'remove' do, defining access levels, and stating the admin scope requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences cover purpose, actions, access levels, prerequisites, and permissions without any filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values do not need to be explained. The description covers the required member condition, admin scope, action semantics, and access-level meanings. It is slightly light on what happens if access_level is provided with action 'remove', but this is a minor edge case given the schema already marks it as only required for 'set'.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the 'view' access level as 'see status' and 'control' as 'send content', and by clarifying the default behavior of 'action'. This adds useful meaning not present in the parameter descriptions.

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 ('Grants or revokes') and names the exact resource ('a member's access to one display inside an organization'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like manage_org_member or assign_display_categories by focusing on display-level grants.

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?

The description provides clear context: it explains the default action, the two actions, and explicitly states prerequisites ('target user must be an organization member' and 'Requires admin scope'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the provided conditions are sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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