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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot express: the caller must be the owner, and the operation is a two-step confirm flow. It could still say whether the change is reversible or what happens to permissions on downgrade.

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?

Four telegraphic fragments, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every one carries information (scope, lookup tool, flow length, permission gate). The clipped style costs a little readability but wastes nothing.

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, owner-gated mutation with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the permission boundary, the two-step confirmation, the role domain, and where to source the target user. An agent has what it needs to call this 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 50%: role's allowed values live in the enum, project_id and confirm_token carry their own descriptions, and only user_id is undocumented. The description's mention of dosai_list_team is the one genuine addition, implying user_id is an existing member id, so this lands at the baseline rather than above it.

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 the role of someone already in the project') and enumerates the target roles, which separates it from dosai_invite_member (adds people) and dosai_remove_member. It names dosai_list_team, but as a lookup prerequisite rather than as an alternative it is not.

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?

'someone already in the project' establishes the precondition and 'Owner only' rules out unauthorized callers, plus 'Two steps' signals the confirmation flow. There is no explicit exclusion versus sibling tools, but the prerequisite scoping is enough to route an agent correctly.

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