n8n_update_user_role

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies authorization requirements ('Only available to instance owner') and constraints ('Cannot change owner role'), which annotations do not cover. Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), and the description does not contradict these, instead complementing them with practical usage details.

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 concise and well-structured, with four sentences that each add value: the first states the purpose, the second specifies authorization, the third explains role semantics, and the fourth sets a constraint. There is no redundant or wasted information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with authorization constraints), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. However, without an output schema, it does not describe return values or error cases, leaving a minor gap. Annotations provide safety and idempotency hints, but the description could benefit from mentioning response format or potential errors.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (id and role with enum values). The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying that 'role' affects permission levels (e.g., 'Admin can manage workflows and credentials. Member has view-only or limited edit access'), which provides some context but is not essential given the schema's completeness.

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 clearly states the verb ('Change') and resource ('user permission level'), making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like n8n_get_user (which reads user data) and n8n_delete_user (which removes users), as it focuses on modifying role permissions rather than retrieving or deleting.

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 description provides explicit usage guidelines: it specifies when to use ('Change user permission level'), when not to use ('Cannot change owner role'), and prerequisites ('Only available to instance owner'). It also implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like n8n_get_user for viewing roles, offering clear context for tool selection.

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