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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: the caller is demoted to member, and ownership is singular ('exactly one owner'), which tells the agent this is an atomic role swap rather than an additive grant.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the action and its consequence front-loaded and the domain invariant last. 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?

For a 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the actor, the target constraint, and the side effect. The main omission is failure/edge behavior (target not a member, caller not the owner), which an agent would benefit from knowing before invoking a destructive operation.

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% with both parameters documented, so the schema carries the burden; baseline is 3. The description adds only the qualifier that userId must be an 'existing member' — useful but marginal over the schema's 'User ID of the member to promote to owner.'

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 ('Transfer team ownership') and immediately scopes it ('to an existing member'), which separates it from muninn_team_add_member and muninn_team_remove_member. The invariant 'a team always has exactly one owner' further pins down what this operation means.

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?

Names the precondition for calling it ('The caller (current owner)') and constrains the target to an existing member, which implicitly rules out inviting or adding someone new. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state what happens if preconditions fail, so it stops short of a 5.

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