Clone role

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds that it copies permissions, color, and settings, but it does not disclose behavior such as what happens if new_name is omitted, whether members are copied, or any return value. This adds some context but leaves notable gaps.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no extraneous information. It earns its place efficiently.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the core action but omits details about optional new_name behavior (e.g., default naming if omitted) and return value. Annotations add minimal safety context. The description is functional but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 67%, with role and guild described, but new_name has no schema description. The tool description does not mention any parameters or explain new_name, so it fails to compensate for the missing documentation. Listing 'permissions, color, settings' refers to the source role's properties, not the parameters, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Copy') and clearly identifies the resource (a role) and the action scope (into a new role). It distinguishes clone_role from siblings like create_role and update_role by explicitly stating it copies permissions, color, and settings into a new role.

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 when you need to duplicate an existing role's properties into a new role, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_role or update_role. There are no exclusions or mentions of alternatives, so the guidance is only implied.

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