manage_security_role

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, non-idempotent, and not read-only, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the preview/dry-run pattern, the ETag-based concurrency requirement, and the fact that privilege contents are untouched — but it does not say what a delete irreversibly removes or what permissions the caller needs.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the action scope is front-loaded and the constraints follow immediately after, so an agent gets the essentials in the first read.

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 10-parameter, destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action model and concurrency contract but omits return/preview content, failure modes, and how id, business_unit_id, and allow_role_change should be used. Adequate, but with visible gaps.

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 coverage is only 10% (just environment_profile), so the description must carry the load, and it only partially does: 'preview' maps to dry_run and 'specific ETag' gestures at expected_hash, though the parameter is a SHA-256 hex pattern rather than an ETag, which risks confusing the agent. The meanings of id, name, description, business_unit_id, and allow_role_change are left entirely to the schema.

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 names a specific verb set (preview, create, rename/update, delete) and a precise resource (customizable unmanaged security role in an explicit unmanaged solution), and the closing clause 'no privilege changes are performed' separates it from sibling privilege tools such as change_role_privilege and list_role_privileges.

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?

It establishes the workflow (preview first, then mutate), the prerequisites for update/delete (native optimistic concurrency and a specific ETag), and an explicit exclusion (no privilege changes). It does not, however, name alternatives such as manage_user_roles for assignment or change_role_privilege for privilege edits, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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