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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it discloses the confirm-gated mutation flow and, importantly, that this is an access-control change with security implications rather than a cosmetic label. It still omits required permissions, reversibility, and role-hierarchy consequences, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences with the core action and its access-control framing front-loaded, followed by the confirmation precondition. No redundant or filler content.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description covers the confirm gating and access-control nature but leaves gaps around permissions, role-hierarchy effects, and enum meanings that an agent would want before invoking a privileged change.

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 only 25% (only confirm is documented), so the description should compensate. It alludes to 'which member' (coachId) and 'which new role' (role), but adds no meaning for organizationId and does not explain the OWNER/ADMIN/PRIMARY_COACH/COACH enum semantics beyond the schema enum itself.

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 (Change) and resource (a coach's role within the organization), and explicitly disambiguates it from a display label. It doesn't name the likely siblings (assign_organization_member_role, update_organization_custom_role), so it lacks explicit sibling routing, but the access-control framing makes the resource scope clear.

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 gives a clear precondition for the confirm param (obtain the coach's explicit confirmation of member and role before calling with confirm: true), which is real usage guidance. However it provides no when-to-use vs alternatives direction against siblings like assign_organization_member_role or update_organization_custom_role, leaving that to inference.

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