n8n: Change project user role

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered, and the description adds the licensing requirement that annotations do not carry. It does not say what happens to the old role's privileges, whether the target user must already be a project member, or whether re-applying the same role is a no-op.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the access requirement. The bracketed tags add noise but cost little in length.

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 destructive mutation with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no permission model, the description is thin. An agent could not reliably construct a valid call, particularly the role string, from this definition alone.

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% across four required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies project_id, user_id and role through the sentence, but never lists valid role values (owner/admin/editor/viewer) or explains what 'site' means, leaving two parameters effectively undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource, 'Change a user's role in a project', and the 'in a project' qualifier meaningfully distinguishes it from the instance-level sibling n8n_change_user_role. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to tell them apart.

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 Enterprise/Pro license prerequisite is a genuinely useful gate the agent cannot get elsewhere. However, there is no guidance on when to use this over n8n_add_project_users (adding vs. modifying) or n8n_remove_project_user, and no stated preconditions about the caller needing project admin rights.

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