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

Annotations only flag it as a destructive, non-readOnly mutation. The description goes well beyond that, disclosing the staging workflow (a request is queued, not applied), the human approval via owner's browser and agent PIN, and the safety rule 'Never ask for or accept the PIN in chat.' This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the owner exception, then the staging/PIN behavior. No filler and the critical safety instruction is placed last for emphasis.

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 one-request mutation with no output schema, the definition covers target selection, exclusivity, the owner edge case, and the asynchronous approval flow. Nothing needed 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 meaning the schema lacks: the mutual-exclusion rule ('exactly one of member or apiKey') is not encoded in the schema, and role=null is explained as the default role. The workspace parameter's necessity condition is left to the schema description.

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 (move) plus the two target resource types (member by email, API key by name) and the two possible destinations (a named access role or the workspace default via role=null). An agent can distinguish this from create_access_role, rename_access_role, or set_member_workspace_role without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit operating constraints: 'Give exactly one of member or apiKey' and 'Owners can't be given a role', plus the role=null escape hatch. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or the precondition for choosing this over set_access_role_capability/set_member_workspace_role, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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