assign_role

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects and failure modes. It only mentions permission requirements but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., role not found, user not in server), whether the operation is idempotent, or any audit logging. This is minimal transparency for a mutating action.

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 one concise sentence, with no redundant words or filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and a key prerequisite, maintaining excellent brevity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the primary purpose and a critical precondition (permissions), but it omits details about parameters, return behavior, and error handling. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps that a user might need to infer.

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?

The description does not explain any of the parameters explicitly. While user_id and role_id are inferable from the verb 'assign role', the optional guild_id and reason are not clarified. The description adds little to the bare schema, leaving parameter meaning largely unspecified.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: assigning a role to a server member. It uses the specific verb 'assign' and specifies the resource (role) and target (server member), making the intent unambiguous. It also mentions required permissions, which further clarifies the action's scope.

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 provides basic context about when to use the tool (assigning roles) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like remove_role or indicate scenarios where this tool should not be used. The permission requirement gives some guidance, but it lacks clear alternative or exclusion criteria.

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