beel_put_owner

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description explains that repeating the call when the member already owns the account returns 204 rather than failing, and explicitly states the auth limitation (session-only). This adds valuable operational behavior not captured in annotations.

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 well-organized into three paragraphs, front-loading the core action and then covering edge cases and alternatives. It is informative without being verbose, though it could be trimmed slightly for a more compact definition.

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?

The description covers authentication requirements, idempotency behavior, the distinction from transfers, and provides an alternative endpoint. For a mutation tool with no output schema, it leaves little ambiguity about what the operation does and under what conditions it can be used.

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 already provides descriptions for both account_id and member_id, so the description adds little new parameter-level detail. It clarifies the role of the body ('the member in the body') but does not exceed the schema's existing coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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: 'Makes the member in the body the account's OWNER and steps the calling owner down to ADMIN', and explicitly contrasts it with a transfer. This distinguishes it from other account management operations without needing to inspect the schema.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: available only from a signed-in dashboard session, not via API keys, and names the alternative (claim token via POST /v1/accounts/{account_id}/claim-tokens) for integrations. This gives clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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