set_org_member_role

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the owner requirement and the specific error for last owner. It does not cover rollback or side effects, but for this simple operation it is adequate.

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, then essential requirements. Every word contributes. No redundancy.

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 tool (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and an error case. It does not explain successful response, but that is typically implied. Completeness is high given tool 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% (baseline 3). The description adds value by clarifying the role hierarchy and indicating that principal_id comes from list_org_members, enhancing understanding 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 verb 'Change' and the resource 'member's role' with a specific hierarchy (owner > admin > developer > billing > viewer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_org_member or remove_org_member by focusing on role modification.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite 'Requires an active owner membership' and a key failure mode 'Demoting the org's only active owner fails with 409 LAST_OWNER.' It does not list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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