n8n_change_project_user_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 only mentions the license requirement but fails to describe side effects, idempotency (whether changing to the same role is allowed), error conditions, or what valid role values are accepted.

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 brief (one sentence plus a license note), but the leading tags '[UNIFIED] [Enterprise]' are wasteful metadata that don't help the AI agent. The core sentence 'Change a user's role in a project' is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 complete absence of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description is inadequate. It provides only the license constraint and basic action semantics, leaving critical gaps around parameter meanings, valid role enumerations, and operational 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 has 0% description coverage for all 4 parameters (site, project_id, user_id, role). The description mentions 'user's role' and 'project' conceptually, but does not explain the 'site' parameter, the expected format for 'role', or which parameters are required. It insufficiently compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action (Change), resource (user's role), and scope (in a project). However, it includes cryptic metadata tags ([UNIFIED] [Enterprise]) that don't aid comprehension, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'n8n_change_user_role' (implied to be global vs project-specific).

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 a prerequisite (Requires n8n Enterprise/Pro license), which helps determine when the tool is available. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus 'n8n_change_user_role' or 'n8n_add_project_users', leaving ambiguity about the correct workflow.

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