Update Organization Member

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: admin auth is required, RawTree prevents demoting the last admin, and user confirmation is mandated before calling.

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 front-loaded and organized into Purpose, Returns, NOT for, Auth, and Safety sections. Every sentence carries useful information for correct invocation, with no filler.

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 schema, annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers the operation, exclusions, return value, authorization, last-admin guard, and safety confirmation requirement.

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%, so the input schema already documents user ID source, organization, and role enum. The description largely repeats that the role is admin or member and does not add syntax or format details beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Change an accepted organization member's role to admin or member.' It also distinguishes the target scope from pending invitations, so an agent can tell it apart from invite-handling siblings.

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?

Explicitly says NOT for pending invitations and directs to list-organization-members to identify an accepted member. This gives both when-not guidance and the correct alternative tool, leaving little ambiguity.

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