Change a team member's role

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description aligns with that by saying it changes a role, and it adds a return contract since no output schema is present. It does not disclose side effects beyond the role change or permission requirements, but the annotations lessen that burden.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a clear Args list, and a Returns shape. There is no filler or redundant explanation; every line 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 simple three-parameter role update, the description is nearly complete: it names required arguments, enumerates valid role values via the schema, and provides the return object. It could be slightly stronger by noting permission prerequisites or error behavior, but those are not essential for a low-complexity team-role mutation.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the description's Args section mostly duplicates schema information. It adds no extra semantic detail such as UUID format expectations or relationship between team_id and user_id beyond what the schema already says.

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 action and resource: 'Change an existing team member's role.' The word 'existing' differentiates it from add/remove team-user operations, and the target of the update is distinct from umami_update_user and umami_update_team.

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 implies usage for current team members via 'existing,' which distinguishes it from adding a new member. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like umami_add_team_user or umami_remove_team_user, nor does it state conditions for when not to use this tool.

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