Update role

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable details: the permission replacement behavior with preset/permissions, partial updates ('Only passed fields change'), and support for dry_run. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies mutation without destruction.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the main purpose, then add key behavioral details. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior (editing, partial updates, permission replacement, dry_run). Missing details like return value or default guild behavior are minor; overall adequate.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the interaction between preset and permissions (replaces permission set with bundle plus listed names) and the partial update behavior. However, it does not add details for parameters like hoist or mentionable.

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 clearly states it edits a role, listing specific fields (name, color, hoist, mentionable, permissions) and distinguishing from sibling tools like create_role, delete_role, and assign_role by focusing on modification of existing role properties.

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 implicitly indicates use for editing roles but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when to use this tool over alternatives like clone_role or bulk_update_roles. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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