create_role

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't mention required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, how the role integrates with the system, or what the response contains. 'Crée' implies a write operation but gives no further behavioral context.

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 maximally concise - a single French phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, though this comes at the cost of completeness. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, return values, or error conditions. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for using this tool is inadequate.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Crée un nouveau rôle' clearly states the action (create) and resource (new role) in French. It's specific enough to understand the basic function, but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_role' or 'delete_role' beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_role' or 'list_roles'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for creating a role versus modifying existing ones.

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