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

The description asserts 'Retry-safe: a repeat call with the same idempotency_key returns the original result,' which is an idempotency claim that directly conflicts with the annotation idempotentHint=false. Rather than complementing the annotations, it contradicts one of them.

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 no filler; the core effect is stated first and the retry note second. Slight deduction for packing a contested claim into the brief.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 8 parameters, 38% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits permission requirements, the full set of valid roles, and the effect of changing a role on existing access, all of which an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only touches the role and the idempotency_key. user_id, workspaceId, brand_id, workspace_id and the body/query overrides get no explanation of format, precedence, or which workspace identifier wins.

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 and resource ('Change a workspace member's role') and adds the consequence ('which changes what they can access'). It clearly sits apart from siblings like aidelly_remove_workspace_member and aidelly_invite_workspace_member, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. An agent is not told the required permissions (e.g. must be owner/admin), nor when to prefer remove/invite over an update, so the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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