Roles

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'delete' action adds little behavioral context. The description does not disclose effects such as whether updating with append=false replaces privileges, or whether deleting a role impacts existing ACLs, users, or groups.

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, scannable sentence that front-loads the resource and its operation surface. It contains no wasted words, though it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context that could have been included without making the description overly long.

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?

The input schema plus annotations provide enough structured detail for a basic invocation, especially given the high parameter documentation coverage. However, the description is sparse: it omits when role management is appropriate, how roles relate to privileges and users, and the nuances of destructive operations, leaving selection and safe usage partially underspecified.

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 high at 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters like roleid, privs, append, digest, and comment. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but high schema coverage makes this acceptable and lands at the baseline 3.

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 identifies the resource, Proxmox roles, and enumerates the available operations: list, create, update, delete. This is clear enough to distinguish 'roles' from sibling resources like users, groups, or ACLs. The umbrella verb 'Manage' is somewhat generic, but the parenthetical supplies concrete action verbs.

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 given about when to use this tool rather than related tools such as proxmox_acl, proxmox_user, or proxmox_group. There are no explicit usage conditions, prerequisites, or alternative references, so an agent must infer the intended use case from the tool name and schema.

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