update_member_role

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool cannot change admin roles, takes immediate effect, and may impact API keys and workspaces. However, it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, what happens to active sessions, or the requirement for the 'confirm' parameter (though schema covers that). The transparency is adequate but not deeply detailed.

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 long, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides constraints and effects. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the main contextual points: what the tool does, what it cannot do (admin changes), and immediate effects. However, it could mention the confirm parameter's role or provide a usage example, but it's still fairly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides: the role parameter's enum values are listed in both, and user_id and confirm have no additional explanation in the description. Thus, no extra value added.

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's purpose: 'Change an existing member's organization role.' It uses a specific verb ('change') and resource ('member's organization role'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_workspace_member (adds member) or update_workspace_member_role (workspace-level role change).

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 explicitly warns when not to use the tool: 'Cannot promote to or demote from "admin" — those changes happen only in the Console.' This provides clear usage boundaries. It also notes immediate effect and potential impact on API keys and workspaces, giving context for when it's appropriate. However, it doesn't compare directly with update_workspace_member_role, leaving some overlap ambiguous.

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