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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known; the description usefully adds the self-membership guard, which annotations cannot express. It does not explain what the role change actually does (permission escalation, access revocation) or that it may be organization-wide, but the annotation coverage keeps the bar low.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero padding: the action first, then the one constraint that matters. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists and both parameters are fully documented, so the description's remaining burden is small; it covers the action and the key restriction. A note on irreversibility or permission requirements would make it complete, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, with the enum of roles and a note that member_id is the membership id rather than the user id — both already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Change a team member's role'), which separates it cleanly from get_team_member, list_team_members and invite_team_member. It stops short of saying this is a role-only mutation (no other member fields), so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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 hard usage exclusion — 'You cannot change your own membership' — which prevents a predictable failed call. It does not name an alternative path (e.g., asking an admin or using invite_team_member), 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.