Change a member's role

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

Annotations mark this destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantive context beyond that: the mandatory confirmationToken/preview flow, the permission and owner-role requirements. This tells the agent how to sequence the call and what authority is needed, which is exactly the burden a destructive mutation must carry.

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, front-loaded with the action and the allowed roles, then the id caveat, then the gating workflow. Every clause carries information, though the token-flow sentence is dense enough that it could be split for scannability.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and thin parameter coverage, the description covers the critical gaps: authorization, confirmation sequencing, and identifier source. It does not say whether the new role replaces the current one or whether constraints exist (e.g. demoting the last owner), which an agent would want before acting.

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 only 20% (just requestId is documented), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines memberId's provenance, lists the role enum values, and explains the purpose of confirmationToken. Only organizationId is left unexplained, which holds it below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Give an organization member another role') and enumerates the exact target values (owner, manager, viewer). It also disambiguates the key identifier by pointing to list_members and explicitly ruling out the user id, which separates it from sibling tools like set_member_project_access and invite_member.

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?

Gives a concrete pre-flight workflow: call preview_operation with tool "change_member_role", show the plan, and only proceed after explicit user agreement — an unusually clear when-to-call gate. It also states access prerequisites (organization:manage permission plus owner role). It does not name alternative siblings for adjacent operations, so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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