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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral note — that MCP approval requirements are org-configurable and business workflow approvals always apply — which suggests the call may enter an approval pipeline. However, it never says what permissions are needed, what happens on duplicate names, or whether the created role is immediately active.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded, but the second sentence is boilerplate policy text whose relevance to this specific call is unclear, and it costs space that could have gone to the parameter object.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description leaves the nested input payload — including the opaque permissions field — unexplained and muddles whether an approval request must first be created. For a mutation tool with a nested schema this is under-specified.

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?

Only one parameter, but it is a nested object (name, color, isDefault, description, permissions) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of these fields. The `permissions` field is an untyped anyOf blob that would especially benefit from prose explanation of its expected shape, yet gets nothing.

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 verb+resource ('Create custom_role') is identifiable, but 'using the same business service as the screen' adds no transferable meaning for an agent and the second sentence pivots to approvals rather than the tool's purpose. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like update_custom_role, delete_custom_role, or create_custom_field.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_custom_role (modify an existing role), list_custom_role/get_custom_role (inspect), or delete_custom_role. The approval sentence is a general policy remark, not a selection criterion.

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