openai_update_project_user_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It simply states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as permissions required, reversibility, side effects on existing roles, or potential restrictions (e.g., cannot demote last owner). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single purpose sentence followed by a compact Args list. Every element is necessary and adds value. It is front-loaded and structured, with no redundant content.

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?

The tool has an output schema (so return values are covered) and all parameters are documented in the description. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks critical context about side effects, permissions, or use-case distinctions from sibling tools like openai_update_user_role. This makes it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: project_id and user_id are explained with pointers to lookup tools, and role explicitly states allowed values ('owner' or 'member'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be more detailed about ID formats or validation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') with a clear resource ('a member's role within a project'). The phrase 'within a project' distinguishes it from the sibling tool openai_update_user_role, which likely operates at a different scope. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool by specifying it changes a role within a project, and the Args show how to obtain the necessary IDs by referencing openai_list_projects and openai_list_project_users. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over related tools.

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