Update role

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

Beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behavior: passing preset and/or permissions replaces the role's permission set with a bundle plus listed names, omitted fields remain unchanged, and dry_run is supported. These details give the agent a clear mental model of side effects and safety, with no contradiction against the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then key behavioral nuance, then the dry_run option. Every sentence adds unique value and there is no redundancy or filler. The structure is highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 9-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description covers the essence: what fields are editable, how permission replacement works, partial-update semantics, and dry_run. It does not mention error conditions or required permissions (e.g., Manage Roles), but those are not strictly necessary for invoking the tool correctly and are often implied by the tool's nature. Slightly more detail on expected return or failure modes would push it to 5.

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 coverage, the description compensates substantially. It explains the semantics of preset and permissions (replacement behavior), clarifies that only passed fields change (so omitted boolean/nullable fields remain untouched), and introduces the dry_run option. This adds meaning far beyond the raw parameter names and enum values.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('a role'), then enumerates exactly which fields are mutable: name, color, hoist, mentionable flag, and permissions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_role, delete_role, and clone_role by emphasizing partial updates and permission-set replacement.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—for modifying an existing role's fields—and the phrase 'Only passed fields change' communicates that it is a targeted update, implying you should not use it to replace the entire role. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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