Manage AWS IAM roles and policies to control access permissions for cloud resources. Create, list, or delete roles and policies to configure secure identity management.
Manage AWS IAM roles and policies
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| region | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| roleName | No | ||
| policyName | No | ||
| policyDocument | No | ||
| assumeRolePolicyDocument | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| managedPolicies | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but it doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, side effects (e.g., deletions), or response formats. For a tool with 9 parameters and no 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 sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes to the core message, though the message itself is under-specified.
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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, return values, or behavioral traits. For a multi-action tool handling sensitive IAM operations, this minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'roles and policies' but doesn't explain any of the 9 parameters (e.g., action, region, name). The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond what's inferred from the tool name, failing to address the coverage gap.
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 'Manage AWS IAM roles and policies' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions the resource (AWS IAM roles and policies) and a vague verb ('manage'), but doesn't distinguish from sibling AWS tools or specify what management operations are available. This is better than a tautology but remains vague about the exact functionality.
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 sibling tools like aws_cloudformation or aws_lambda, nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for IAM management. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.