update_role

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-update behavior ('unset attributes retain original values'), which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about the effect of the admin/accessAllResources escalation flags or what is returned. Worse, 'attributes are optional' sits awkwardly against a body schema that requires name, admin and accessAllResources.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and endpoint, with the merge semantics placed second where they belong. Slight redundancy between 'Update attributes to your role' and the opening sentence, but no wasted prose.

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 a deep nested body, full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the core operation but leaves permission requirements, the effect of the admin flag, and the response shape unaddressed. It is adequate but with clear gaps for a privileged write operation.

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% and the nested body, permissions array and roleId are all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added semantic is the merge-on-omission behavior, which it does not reconcile with the schema's required body fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update specific role by id') plus the underlying endpoint [PUT /v1/roles/{roleId}], which clearly separates it from create_role, retrieve_role and delete_role. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Nothing says when an agent should choose update_role over, say, create_role or update_user, nor what permissions or preconditions are required. The only guidance given ('Attributes are optional. If not set, the attributes will retain their original values') describes update semantics, not when-to-use vs alternatives.

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