Update Team Member Role

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context by naming the TEAM_DB_PATH requirement, but says nothing about authorization needed to change roles, whether the change is reversible, or what happens if the author ID is unknown or ambiguous.

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 short sentences, nothing redundant, with the action stated before the prerequisite. It is efficient, though the second sentence is a bare config note rather than a structured usage statement.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation/safety profile. Given a three-parameter schema with full coverage, the description supplies the one non-obvious operational fact (TEAM_DB_PATH), which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% with an enum on role and detailed notes on workspace_id, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's only added signal is that 'author' must reference an existing member, which is marginal beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Update the role') plus a scope qualifier ('an existing team member'), which separates it from team_add_member and team_remove_member. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state what it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Existing team member' implies a precondition (the author must already be on the team) and TEAM_DB_PATH names a required environment prerequisite. However, there is no explicit routing guidance (e.g., use team_add_member to create, team_remove_member to remove) and no mention of what to do when the author is unknown.

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