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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect — the old membership ends, a new one starts, both are kept in history — which is genuinely useful mutational context. It omits what the call returns (e.g., a new membership_id), permission/ownership enforcement details, and whether the change is reversible or triggers notifications.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with actor and action, then the consequence. Nothing wasted and nothing padded.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to explain return values and permissions; the description covers the historical side effect well but leaves the returned identifier and access requirements unknown.

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 0% and neither parameter is described. The description's 'office and field' merely restates the role enum, adding nothing beyond the schema, and membership_id — the critical identifier — is never clarified as membership vs user vs shop scope.

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 ('changes a worker between office and field') and makes clear it operates on a membership. Distinct enough from members_invite/members_accept, but it never acknowledges the nearest sibling members_end even while describing that the old membership ends.

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?

Implies the caller must be the owner and that the subject is an existing worker/membership, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs members_end, members_permissions or members_invite, and no stated preconditions or failure conditions.

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