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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action only stages a request, requires the owner to review and approve with a PIN, and explicitly warns never to ask for the PIN in chat. It also notes the effect reaches all followers of the role. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is longer than average due to the capability list, but each sentence earns its place: the action, the capability enumeration, and the critical staging/PIN warning. It is front-loaded with the main action and scoping, with the safety note at the end. No fluff.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the two-phase approval flow and the security caveat about PINs. It omits response format and error handling, but those are often standardized and less critical for invocation. The ownership requirement and capability scope are adequately covered.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds human-readable labels for each capability (e.g., readMail = Read my email) and clarifies the staging behavior, which gives agents a better grasp of what each value does. It also implies the workspace parameter's condition without repeating it verbatim.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('access role'), and explicitly names the eight capabilities it manages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_access_role_mailbox_access and set_access_role_skill_access, which target different resource types. The scope ('in a workspace you own') is also clearly stated.

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?

It clearly states the action is for capabilities on an access role and that it only stages a request for owner approval. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives for mailbox or skill access; the differentiation is implied by the capability list. The ownership requirement and the staging workflow are practical usage context.

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