edit_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says only 'edit' without disclosing whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared (partial vs. full update), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or that the 'reason' field feeds an audit log. For a mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but for a 10-parameter mutation tool it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and the grammar ('an existing role settings') is imprecise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 10 parameters (only roleId required, implying a partial-update semantic that is never explained), the definition leaves key calling questions unanswered—most notably what happens to fields not passed and whether permissions are replaced or merged.

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 every parameter is self-documented (name, color, hoist, position, permissionsRaw, permissionsNames, audit reason, etc.). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (Edit) and resource (an existing role's settings and permissions), which is enough to separate it from create_role, delete_role, and get_role_info by implication. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, and the phrasing 'role settings' is slightly loose.

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 mention of when to prefer create_role versus edit_role, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., permission to manage roles or hierarchy constraints). The agent must infer all usage context.

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