Change a member's role

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses two important behavioral traits: promoting to owner/admin grants broad access to every secret, and admin callers are blocked from modifying owners, other admins, or promoting to admin/owner. These are security-relevant consequences not encoded in the annotations and are essential for safe usage.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the main action, a safety warning, and a key permission constraint. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids filler. This is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the operation, parameter identification, privilege escalation consequences, and admin restrictions. No critical information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly 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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: role enums and member email/id prefix. The description repeats the member identification format but adds no additional parameter semantics. Per the rubric, with full schema coverage the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Changes an existing member's role in the organization.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like invite, remove, and list. It also implicitly conveys the operation's scope (role mutation), so an agent can select it correctly 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?

The description gives clear context about when to use the tool and adds critical operational guidance: confirm with the user before granting owner/admin, and warns about caller limitations. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as invite or remove, but the sibling names and the verb 'change' make the appropriate use case unambiguous.

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