change_user_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the required permission ('users.change_role') and implies a mutating action, which adds useful context. However, it omits consequences, reversibility, or whether there are restrictions on changing certain roles (e.g., demoting an admin).

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the permission requirement and then states the action. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves the meaning of `id` unexplained and does not cover the implications of a role change or any edge cases. While simple, the lack of parameter and behavioral detail makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter semantics. The `role` parameter is self-explanatory via its enum, but `id` is ambiguous (it is not stated to be a user ID). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Change' with the resource 'another user's workspace role,' clearly distinguishing this tool from self-service updates (update_my_account) and other user management actions like suspend or remove. It clearly states the tool's function and scope.

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 implies usage when another user's workspace role needs to be changed, and the phrase 'another user's' contrasts with self-service tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like suspend_user or invite_user, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the permission note.

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