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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('change') but does not reveal side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, error behavior, or whether owner roles are protected. The 'non-owner' constraint is the only behavioral nuance, which is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a straightforward mutation, though it omits contextual details. It earns a 4 for efficiency rather than 5 because it sacrifices useful behavioral context for brevity.

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 simple tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to specify valid role values, whether the operation is reversible, who can perform it, or how the 'non-owner' constraint is enforced. An agent may not be able to invoke it correctly without additional knowledge.

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% ('New role', 'Member user ID', 'Active organization ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters, such as allowed role values or ID formats, but it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 action ('Change') and a clear resource ('non-owner member role'), making the tool's primary function understandable. It is distinct from sibling tools since no other tool in the list explicitly targets role changes, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what preconditions exist (e.g., administrative permissions), or any exclusions beyond the 'non-owner' qualifier. There is no 'use when' or 'instead of' information, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name and action.

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