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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: an edit takes effect immediately for every member of the role, and the feature is tariff-gated. It does not explain reversibility or the non-idempotent nature flagged by annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core create-or-edit behavior, then permissions legend, then role_id rule, then tariff caveat. Efficient, though the permission-value enumeration duplicates what is already in the enum description.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers create-vs-edit semantics, the cross-member blast radius of edits, the permission value legend, and a tariff constraint. An agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents name, role_id, permissions, folder_permissions and the allowed/partially/forbidden enum. The description largely restates the permission value meanings (allowed/partially/forbidden) and the role_id create-vs-edit rule that the schema also states, adding little beyond the baseline.

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 tool behavior: creates a role OR edits the permissions of an existing one, with an explicit rule for which happens (no role_id → create, with role_id → edit). The note that an edit propagates immediately to all members of that role also distinguishes it from member-level assignment siblings like set_workspace_member_role.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for role_id (create vs. edit) and a prerequisite constraint ('Настройка ролей доступна не на всех тарифах'). It stops short of naming alternative tools (get_workspace_roles as source, delete_workspace_role as the removal path) or stating exclusions, so it is strong context without full routing.

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