Change an account role

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a valuable domain caveat beyond annotations: roles cannot exceed granted OAuth scopes, so promotion may silently fail to grant write. This is non-obvious behavioral context that an agent needs.

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 sentences, no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the caveat follows logically. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-param mutation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states the action and the key caveat. Minor gaps: no mention of permission requirements to change roles or how the change takes effect.

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 100%, and the schema documents both parameters with examples and enum values. The description adds no param syntax or format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('change') and resource ('role assigned to a connected account'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like set_account_enabled or connect_account. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate, but the role-focused scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose but there's no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites stated, and no alternatives named. The OAuth-scope caveat hints at a constraint but isn't framed as usage guidance.

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