set_org_member_role

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

The description discloses the mutation nature, required ownership, and a specific error case (409 LAST_OWNER). But it does not mention other potential side effects, idempotency, or whether changes take effect immediately. Without annotations, the burden is higher and the description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and hierarchy, and efficiently covers key information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites, and a notable error case. It lacks return value information but is otherwise fairly complete given the tool's complexity.

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 schema already describes all parameters. The description adds context for the role hierarchy and notes that principal_id comes from list_org_members, but the schema's role enum description already includes hierarchy. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 member's role' and includes the role hierarchy (owner > admin > developer > billing > viewer), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_org_member, remove_org_member, promote_user, and demote_user.

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?

It specifies the precondition 'Requires an active `owner` membership' and a failure condition for demoting the only owner. However, it does not explicitly compare to similar tools like promote_user or demote_user, which could help agents choose the right tool.

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