team_role_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the authorization model, states no key material is re-wrapped, notes an audit side effect (teamRoleChanged event) and cross-peer convergence. It doesn't cover failure modes (e.g., demoting the last owner) or whether the change is reversible by re-invoking.

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 tight sentences: action first, then authorization gate, then effect. No filler, no repetition, and the most decision-relevant constraint (auth requirement) is front-loaded after the action.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and no annotations, it covers action, permissions, side effects and consistency semantics. The main remaining gap is what happens on invalid transitions (e.g., removing the last owner), which matters for a role-change tool.

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% and the enum is already declared, so the description's inline role list and ownership rule largely restate structured data. Baseline 3 applies — it adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource — changing an admitted team member's access role — and enumerates the exact role values. The phrase 'without re-wrapping key material' distinguishes it from cryptographic operations like team_key or team_grant at a glance.

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 explicit preconditions for use ('caller must hold at least admin; assigning admin or owner requires owner'), which is the main gating decision. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as team_grant or team_revoke, so the agent must infer which tool handles membership vs. role modification.

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