Create a custom role

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that scopes must be non-superadmin and held by the caller, and that the role is customer-owned. However, it does not mention idempotency behavior or potential side effects of repeated calls, which is a minor gap for a creation tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a required scope note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence, followed by constraints and alternatives, with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers key behaviors, constraints, and alternatives. However, it does not specify the return value (expected output of a created role object) since there is no output schema. Also, it omits mention of uniqueness constraints for the name beyond the schema description. Still, it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining scope validation (non-superadmin, held by caller) and directing to acct_list_scopes, which is not fully captured in the schema descriptions. This extra context justifies a higher score.

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 'Create a customer-owned role with the given scope set', specifying the verb (create), resource (role), and key attribute (customer-owned, scope set). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool team_duplicate_role by advising to use that alternative when starting from an existing role's scopes.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'To start from an existing role's scopes instead, use team_duplicate_role.' It also lists constraints (scopes must exist in registry, be non-superadmin, held by caller) and the required scope (team:write), giving clear context for appropriate invocation.

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