Change a member's role

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the high-impact side effect: setting role=owner transfers ownership of the workspace, requiring confirm=true. It also mentions the credential requirement and server-side enforcement, adding valuable behavioral context not present in the 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-structured and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses three informative sentences without redundancy. It could be slightly more compact, but each sentence adds necessary detail for a high-impact operation.

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 tool with 4 parameters, an output schema, and sensitive ownership-transfer behavior, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, required permissions, ownership transfer semantics, and confirm requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches meaning by explaining that role=owner is an ownership transfer and that confirm must be true for that case. It also clarifies the source/context for workspace and account_id, improving understanding beyond the schema descriptions alone.

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 verb 'Change' with a specific resource 'a workspace member's role' and enumerates the allowed values (owner, admin, member). It also specifies the key identifiers (workspace id and accountId), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove/invite member.

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 context on when the tool is appropriate by stating the required team-scoped credential (members:admin) and the server-side rule that only an owner may modify an owner. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the constraints and the clear purpose imply correct usage.

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