change_user_project_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (change) but does not disclose permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether previous role is overwritten or if the user must already be in the project), or success/failure behavior. Minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Every word is necessary. Highly concise.

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 mutation with 3 required parameters and full schema description, the description is functionally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral transparency (permissions, side effects) and does not explain the output or errors. With low complexity, a 3 is fair.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema (the roles are listed in parentheses, matching the enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (change), resource (user's role inside a project), and the specific roles (admin/editor/viewer). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'change_user_role' (which likely affects global role) and 'add_user_to_project' (which adds a user, not changes role).

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?

Description implies usage for changing project-specific roles but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'change_user_role' or 'remove_user_from_project'. No exclusions or context provided.

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