Change a member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the confirmationToken gating, the permission/role prerequisite, and the clarification that memberId comes from list_members rather than being a user id. It does not say what state change is irreversible for suspend or what happens to a member's role when suspended.

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?

Front-loads the operation semantics, then the id-source caveat, then the confirmation/permission requirements. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long as a single unbroken block rather than segmented.

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 low schema coverage, the description covers the operands, the id source, the confirmation workflow, and the permission gate. The remaining gap is the outcome/response of the call and whether 'role' is mandatory for change_role, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 17%, so the description must carry the load, and it does substantially: it explains each operation value, that 'role' is the role to pass for change_role, that memberId is the member id from list_members, and that confirmationToken must come from preview_operation. It leaves organizationId and the idempotency semantics of requestId entirely to 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?

Names the resource (organization member) and enumerates the three concrete operations (change_role, suspend, reactivate) with their effect in plain terms. An agent can distinguish this from invite_member or list_members 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?

Explicitly states the required precondition workflow: call preview_operation with tool 'update_member' and these arguments, show the plan, and call only after explicit user agreement. It also states the auth requirements (organization:manage permission and owner role), which is exactly when-to-use guidance.

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