Change a teammate’s role

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

The description discloses that this is a privilege change and requires user confirmation before calling, including the confirm:true flag. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, which already mark the tool as non-read-only but not destructive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and role definitions, and every clause adds meaningful guidance. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with a complete schema and relevant annotations, the description covers the essential workflow, role semantics, and confirmation requirement. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what admin versus member means and by clarifying that confirm must be true after user confirmation, which goes beyond the bare property descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('workspace member's role'), and clarifies the exact role values with their access implications. This clearly distinguishes set_role from related sibling tools like invite_member and remove_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 makes the use case clear: adjusting a workspace member's privileges, not adding or removing members. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of X', but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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