demote_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the role change and authorization requirement but omits details about irreversibility, error handling (e.g., user not found or already default), side effects, or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes useful information without redundancy. Very efficient.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 required params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential operation. However, it lacks details on what happens if the user is not a project_admin, the precise default role, and success/error responses.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, and the description adds meaningful context: 'by email' maps to the email parameter, 'from project_admin' implies the project_id. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 (demote) and the target resource (user with project_admin role), specifying the method (by email) and outcome (reverts to default authenticated role). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'promote_user' but the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires service_key') which provides some usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., promote_user, set_user_password) or scenarios where demotion is inappropriate.

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