pve_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. 'Update role configuration' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a tool that modifies system roles with 3 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral transparency.

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 with just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, the text itself is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It could be more helpful with additional context, but as written, it's structurally efficient.

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 role modification tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'role configuration' entails, what privileges can be set, how the update affects existing configurations, or what happens upon success/failure. The agent lacks necessary context to use this tool effectively despite the good schema coverage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 3 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'Update role configuration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_update_role'. It provides the verb 'update' and resource 'role configuration', but lacks specificity about what aspects of role configuration are updated (privileges, permissions, etc.) and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pve_create_role' or 'pve_delete_role'.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no indications about prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'pve_create_role' or 'pve_get_role'. The agent receives no usage instructions beyond the minimal description.

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