update_member_role

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: required permission level and a rejection condition for last admin. This adequately informs the agent of critical constraints, though minor details like idempotency or immediate effect are omitted.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second gives critical constraints.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core functionality and key restrictions. It does not mention any additional details like reversibility or side effects, but these are not essential for basic usage.

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 only 33% (membership_id has a description). The description adds no further parameter-specific details beyond the schema. It provides overall context about the caller requirement, but does not elaborate on organization_id or new_role parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Change a member's role within an organization,' providing a clear verb+resource combination. It further clarifies constraints, distinguishing it from sibling tools like invite_member or remove_member.

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 specifies when to use the tool and includes important prerequisites (caller must be org owner) and conditions (server rejects demoting last admin). While it does not explicitly list when not to use, the context of sibling tools makes it clear.

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