set_org_member_role

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

Without annotations, the description provides key behavioral info: the role hierarchy, owner requirement, and error condition (409 LAST_OWNER for demoting only owner). It does not detail whether changes are reversible or immediate, but covers important failure modes.

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 two sentences, front-loading the action and hierarchy, then constraints. Every word is functional with no wasted text.

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 without output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and a key error case. It lacks details on success response or side effects, but is sufficient for an agent to understand the core behavior.

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 schema already explains the role parameter with hierarchy. The description adds value by explicitly stating the hierarchy order and the error scenario, which goes beyond the schema. Given 100% schema coverage, the description supplements effectively.

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 tool changes a member's role and specifies the role hierarchy. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_org_member by focusing on role changes, and the hierarchy provides precise scope.

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 mentions a prerequisite (active owner membership) but does not explicitly differentiate from specialized role tools like promote_user or demote_user in the sibling list. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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