anon_patch_roles_role_name

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required role:manage permission, that roleName must be URL-encoded, and that the project is inferred from the API key. It still omits whether the permissions array replaces or merges existing permissions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then permission, encoding, and route details; every sentence contributes. The raw HTTP path is mildly redundant with the name but still aids an agent matching the operation.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key operational facts (auth, encoding, project inference). For a nested-body mutation tool it is still incomplete regarding the permissions array values and PATCH replace-vs-merge semantics.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It adds real value for roleName (URL-encoding requirement) and explains that projectId is not needed, but it never documents the permissions array format or the allowed permission strings, leaving the most important body parameter unexplained.

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 and resource (更新角色权限 / update role permissions) and the raw PATCH route, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like anon_post_roles (create) and anon_delete_roles_role_name (delete). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a real precondition (需 role:manage 权限) which tells the agent whether it is authorized to call the tool. However it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusions relative to the create/delete role siblings, so usage is only implied.

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