Contract Testing: Admin Add Role to User

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

Annotations indicate no special traits (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether adding an existing role causes an error, if permissions are required, or if the action is reversible).

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 short and to the point, but includes redundant 'Toolset: Admin' line. It is efficient overall, though could be slightly more concise by removing redundancy.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema and no idempotency annotations, the description lacks details on error states (e.g., duplicate role) and idempotency. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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%, with both parameters described as UUIDs. The description merely repeats the parameter names and types, adding no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a single role to a user (admin)'), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'admin_set_user_roles' or 'admin_remove_role_from_user', which could cause confusion about when to use this tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as bulk role assignment or removal. No explicit context or exclusion criteria are given.

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