update_team_member_role

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'Update' implying mutation, but does not disclose permissions required, reversibility, consequences to the member's access, or whether it is idempotent. This leaves the agent without awareness of side effects.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the purpose and the allowed role values, earning its place.

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?

The tool is simple with all parameters documented, but the description omits any mention of return values or behavioral caveats (e.g., permission requirements). Since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 fully describes all three parameters (teamId, memberId, role) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond restating the role enum values, which are already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update a team member's role (viewer, editor, admin, owner)' clearly states the specific action and resource, with the role options enumerated. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_team_invitation_role by targeting team members rather than invitations.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the operation without context such as 'use this to change an existing member's role' versus inviting new members.

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