modifier_role

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, yet it does not disclose what mutation actually occurs, whether the change is applied immediately or only previewed, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are needed. The word 'APERÇU' actively raises a behavioral question the description never answers.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but it is two fragments rather than a structured sentence, and the 'APERÇU' prefix consumes attention without conveying clarified meaning. Nothing is padded, yet the brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot tell whether to expect a preview artifact, what a successful result looks like, or how to format the permissions value.

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 all three parameters lack documentation. The description names 'nom' and 'permissions' but says nothing about the required 'role_id' or the expected format of the permissions string (list, bitfield, JSON?), leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 ('Modifier ... un rôle') and names the two editable fields (nom, permissions), which distinguishes it from creer_role and supprimer_role in the sibling list. The leading token 'APERÇU' is left unexplained, adding ambiguity about whether the operation is real or simulated.

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 implies usage (change a role's name or permissions) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as required privileges, and no pointer to alternatives like creer_role or supprimer_role. The 'APERÇU' prefix vaguely hints at a preview mode without stating its condition.

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