set_role_permissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('définit' - sets) but doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing permissions, requires admin rights, has side effects, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy 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 the complexity of a permission-setting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what permissions are available, how they're formatted, the effect of the 'reset' parameter, or what the tool returns. This leaves critical context gaps for effective use.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'roleId', 'permissions', and 'reset'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Définit les permissions d'un rôle' (Sets the permissions of a role) clearly states the verb ('définit' - sets) and resource ('permissions d'un rôle' - permissions of a role), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_role' or 'set_channel_permissions', leaving ambiguity about scope and specificity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'edit_role' (which might handle permissions) or 'set_channel_permissions'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.

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