edit_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Modifie' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient French phrase ('Modifie un rôle existant') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values. The agent lacks crucial context for safe and effective tool invocation beyond basic parameter documentation in the schema.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters (roleId, name, color, hoist, mentionable). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Modifie un rôle existant' clearly states the action (modify) and resource (existing role) in French. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_role' (creation vs. modification) and 'delete_role' (modification vs. deletion). However, it doesn't specify what aspects of a role can be modified, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing role ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_role' or 'delete_role'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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