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

Annotations only supply the generic safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the auth requirement, the restriction that only the owner can appoint/remove ADMIN or touch a sitting ADMIN, that the owner cannot be modified here, and that official 主理人/alliance-leader identities are term-bound and immutable. These are exactly the constraints an agent needs to avoid a failed or forbidden call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into 【组合链】 and 【口径/坑】 sections. The parenthetical role glosses are the only elaboration, and every line conveys a distinct constraint or routing instruction with no filler.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: caller role, prerequisite tool, id disambiguation, and the set of members whose roles cannot be changed. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that membershipId is not userId (repeated in the pitfall list) and attaches Chinese role labels to the enum values. This reduces misuse of the id parameter.

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+resource ('把一位在册成员设为...' set an enrolled member to a role) and enumerates the exact target roles with human-readable glosses. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like remove_organization_member, set_organization_member_activity_permission, and update_my_organization_membership.

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 【组合链】 block gives an explicit prerequisite chain: call list_organization_members to obtain membershipId, read it back to the user for confirmation, then invoke this tool. It also names the required caller role (OWNER/ADMIN), so the agent knows both when and by whom this can be called.

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