Update Team Member Role

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it is a role change operation requiring specific permissions (admin/owner) and cannot target the owner. While it doesn't detail side effects like notifications or audit logs, it sufficiently supplements the annotations.

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 concise English sentences with no redundant information. Key info is front-loaded: purpose, permissions, exception, and example. The structure is clean and efficient, earning its space.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, permissions, exception, and provides an example. It doesn't explain return values (handled by output schema). Minor gap: potential downstream effects of role change, but overall adequate.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description provides a concrete example (memberId='mbr_abc123', role='admin') which adds slight value, but not substantially beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Change the role of an existing team member', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'invite_team_member' and 'remove_team_member' by focusing on role changes, and explicitly mentions the owner role exception, differentiating from an ownership transfer flow.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (to change a role) and who can use it (workspace admins or owners). Also provides a clear exclusion: cannot change the owner's role, directing to a dedicated ownership transfer flow. This offers complete guidance on usage.

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