Update a custom role

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

The description goes beyond annotations by warning of high impact when changing scopes: session invalidation fans out to all users holding the role. This adds important behavioral context that the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) do not fully capture.

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 concise at 5 sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the main purpose, then covers constraints and impact. Could be slightly more concise, but 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, constraints, and behavioral impacts adequately. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to detail return values as the context is clear for an update operation.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds only marginal value, e.g., noting that only provided fields are changed and that scopes replaces the entire list. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'customer-owned role', and distinguishes from sibling tools like team_create_role and team_delete_role by specifying the scope of update (display name, description, scope set).

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 key usage guidance: it notes that system roles are immutable (when not to use), advises using acct_list_scopes to discover valid scopes, and specifies the required team:write scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like team_duplicate_role or team_get_role.

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