mmar_update_role

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important trait: 'Send the complete desired state of the role', implying a full update semantics. Yet it lacks clarity on side effects, error cases, or permissions, leaving significant behavioral transparency 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by usage scenarios and a key behavioral instruction. Every sentence is purposeful and there is no redundancy.

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 update tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and a critical behavioral constraint. It does not discuss prerequisites like existing role existence or error handling, but these are not strictly necessary given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly tying role_data to cardinality and class_references, and by emphasizing the 'complete desired state' requirement, which clarifies how to construct the JSON parameter.

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 the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing role on a relationclass'), distinguishing it from other update tools by specifying the target. It also names the key updatable aspects (cardinality, class_references), reinforcing its purpose.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to change cardinality (min/max) or which classes a role can connect to', giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.

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