anon_post_roles

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth requirement (role:manage) and the implicit project-scoping behavior, which are genuinely useful traits beyond the annotations.

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 the verb, followed by permission requirement and endpoint. Compact with no wasted sentences, though the raw POST path line is somewhat redundant alongside the endpoint-scoping note.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the auth and project-scoping essentials, and annotations carry the safety semantics. It still leaves the body's required fields and the create result entirely unexplained.

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 compensate, yet it never explains the required body fields 'name' and 'permissions' (the latter being an ambiguous array of strings). It does clarify that projectId should not be passed, but the actual parameters remain undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('创建角色' / create role) and adds the required permission scope (role:manage). The action contrasts naturally with the delete_roles and patch_roles siblings, but the description never names or routes to them explicitly.

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?

Provides the role:manage prerequisite and clarifies that the project is resolved from the API key so no projectId is needed, which is useful invocation context. It offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling update/delete role tools.

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