openai_update_user_role

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and allowed role values, without mentioning side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or impact on the user's access. This is a significant gap for a mutating role-change operation.

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 concise, with a single-purpose first sentence and a structured Args list for the parameters. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information. The format is easily parseable.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description covers the basic functionality and parameters. However, it lacks context about important operational constraints, such as whether a user can be demoted to reader if they are the last owner, or any prerequisite like the user being an active member. This leaves gaps for an agent selecting the tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters: user_id as the member's user ID with a pointer to openai_list_users, and role as either 'owner' or 'reader'. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could include more detail like case sensitivity or validation rules.

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 the verb 'Change' and the resource 'a member's role in the organization', making it distinct from sibling tools like openai_update_project_user_role. It specifies the organizational scope, which disambiguates it from project-level role changes.

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 provides clear context: to change a user's organization role. It references openai_list_users for obtaining the correct user_id, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like openai_update_project_user_role, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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