Manage custom role users

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: admin-only authorization, that an add does not revoke other role memberships, that explicit confirmation is required, and a warning against auto-resubmitting unknown outcomes. That goes meaningfully beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, which is good, but the second paragraph mixes a relevant confirmation rule with generic boilerplate ("Runs can spend credits or trigger downstream actions") that is not specific to this account-operation tool and dilutes the message.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, the confirmation gate, and the key membership side effect, which is enough for correct invocation. It leaves the relationship to manage_project_users and the account/payload precedence unexplained.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the add/remove semantics and admin requirement without adding format or usage detail for the nine parameters (e.g., account vs organization_id interplay), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (add or remove) and resource (users in a custom role, formerly "permission group") and scopes it to organization administrators. The analogous sibling manage_project_users is never referenced, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

Gives a prerequisite (must be an org admin) and a useful side-effect rule (adding does not remove from other roles), plus a confirmation requirement. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over manage_project_users or other role-related siblings, so usage is only implied.

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