assign_role

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not mention required permissions (typically Manage Roles), whether the operation is idempotent, whether it emits an audit-log entry (despite a reason parameter existing), or what happens on failure with an invalid role/user.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 state-mutating permission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover permission requirements, idempotency/side effects, and failure behavior. None of that is present, so the definition is materially incomplete despite the schema documenting the parameters.

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% – all four parameters (userId, roleId, reason, guildId) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, constraint, or default-resolution detail (e.g., how guildId defaults to DISCORD_GUILD_ID), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Assign) and resource (role to user in the server), which is clear enough to act on. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling remove_role or mention the nuance of role assignment vs. role editing (edit_role), leaving that distinction to the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions (e.g., bot permissions), and no pointer to alternatives such as remove_role for the inverse operation. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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