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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds non-obvious behavior: members of the deleted role are migrated to the default role and their capabilities change, plus built-in roles are protected. This side-effect disclosure is exactly what an agent needs before a destructive call, though permission requirements and irreversibility are not addressed.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded, then the side-effect, then the constraint. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the two things structured fields cannot: the member-migration side-effect and the built-in-role restriction. Adequate, with only minor gaps around permissions/undo.

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%, and both role_id and workspace_id already document their origin (get_workspace_roles, workspace://list). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Удаляет роль аккаунта'), so the action is unambiguous and clearly distinct from save_workspace_role and get_workspace_roles. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, keeping it at a solid 4 rather than 5.

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 gives a real precondition ('Встроенные роли удалить нельзя'), which tells the agent when the call will fail, but it never states when to delete a role versus reassigning it (set_workspace_member_role) or saving an edit (save_workspace_role). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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