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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the confirm-gate, owner-only authorization, full-replacement semantics ('Sends the full capability list'), and blast radius ('changes access for everyone who holds the role'). It stops short of stating reversibility or error behavior, so not quite maximal.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the gate/auth, then the side effect. Every clause is load-bearing, though the telegraphic style leaves some connective context implicit.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 17% parameter coverage, the description covers the essential replacement semantics, auth, and impact. It still omits what happens to untouched role state, failure/validation behavior, and id-parameter requirements, so it 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate. It names name/description/capabilities and crucially clarifies that capabilities is a complete replacement list ('Sends the full capability list'), which adds real meaning beyond the schema. It says nothing about roleId or organizationId semantics, leaving part of the low-coverage schema unaddressed.

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 and resource ('Replace a custom role's name, description and capabilities') that inherently distinguishes it from the create_/delete_organization_custom_role and update_organization_coach_role siblings. An agent can identify it as a full-replacement operation on a custom role without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a hard prerequisite ('Owner only') and flags the confirm-gated workflow, which shapes how the tool should be invoked. However, it names no alternative tool or the condition that would select it over create_organization_custom_role or update_organization_coach_role, leaving usage selection to inference.

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