Override contributor tier

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the override is logged in end_user_activity with action=tier_override_manual, and requires mcp:write scope. This goes beyond annotations by detailing the logging behavior and authorization requirement. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences with no unnecessary words. The purpose is stated first, followed by context and then the logging detail. All sentences earn their place, and the description is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool is simple (3 parameters, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, logging, and scope. It could mention what happens on success (e.g., returns success message) but is adequate for an admin override tool. The logging detail compensates for the lack of output schema.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description adds little extra meaning beyond echoing the tier_slug example. The optional 'reason' parameter is mentioned but not elaborated. Overall, the description does not significantly enhance the schema's already clear parameter documentation.

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 tool overrides a contributor's tier by slug, distinguishing it from automatic tier transitions by labeling it an admin escape hatch for manual promotions. The verb 'override' and resource 'contributor tier' are specific, and the example slug disambiguates from sibling tools.

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 positions the tool as an admin escape hatch for manual promotions when automatic transitions are not desired. It implies normal transitions occur via point thresholds, so this tool should only be used when bypassing that system. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools (e.g., if automatic promotion exists), but the context is clear enough.

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