Change a teammate’s role

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it explains what the roles grant (admin = full access incl. billing, member = read-only on billing) and frames this as a privilege change requiring confirmation, which is not 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?

Two tight sentences with the role semantics front-loaded and the confirmation requirement second. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With rich annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema to explain, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what changes, the two role meanings, and the required confirmation step. Nothing material 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 goes further by explaining the semantic consequences of each enum value (admin vs member billing access) and clarifying the confirm workflow, adding meaning beyond the schema's terse 'the new role'.

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?

States a specific verb (Change) and resource (a workspace member's role) and enumerates the two allowed outcomes with their meaning. An agent can distinguish it from invite_member and remove_member without opening any 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?

Gives clear procedural guidance: confirm the exact person + new role with the user before calling, and call with confirm:true. It lacks explicit routing to siblings (e.g. when to use remove_member vs set_role), which keeps it below a 5.

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