Change a teammate’s role

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

The description states that confirm:true must be passed, but the schema does not list confirm as required, creating a conflict that could mislead an agent into omitting it. This is a behavioral hazard. The description does add context about roles (admin has billing access, member is read-only on billing) beyond the annotations, but the confirm discrepancy undermines transparency. No other behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, idempotency implications) are disclosed.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the action. The first sentence states the action and role distinctions; the second adds the confirmation instruction. It's efficient without excess, though the confirmation instruction could be clearer about it being a mandate rather than optional.

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 role-change tool, the description covers the essentials: what changes, role meanings, and the need for confirmation. However, it omits expected behaviors like validation (e.g., what if email doesn't exist) or the response/return value. Since there is no output schema, the agent has no idea what the tool returns. The confirm conflict also affects completeness. Overall, adequate but with gaps.

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 description adds meaningful value to the parameters: it defines what 'admin' and 'member' mean (full access incl. billing vs read-only on billing), and reiterates that confirm must be true. The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, but the description enriches the enum semantics and the confirmation requirement, going beyond the schema's basic 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 clearly states the action ('Change a workspace member’s role') and specifies the resource (workspace member) and the two role options (admin vs member) with access details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like invite_member or remove_member by focusing on role modification. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explains when to use it: a privilege change that requires confirmation with the user. It implies that the agent should confirm the person and new role before invoking. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context of 'privilege change' is a clear indicator. The guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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