n8n_change_user_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Change' implies a mutation, but nothing is said about whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur. For a mutating action with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states exactly what the tool does and includes the key scoping term 'global,' making it appropriately concise and 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the tool's core purpose and differentiate it from the project-role variant. The missing permissions and side-effect context slightly reduce completeness, but the low complexity and rich schema keep it largely adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('User ID' and 'New role') and the role enum values. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a user's global role'), and the adjective 'global' clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling n8n_change_user_project_role. An agent can identify what this tool does and what it does not do without opening the 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?

The word 'global' implies this is for changing global roles as opposed to project roles, which provides some usage context relative to the sibling tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or permission requirements.

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