Contract Testing: Admin Create Role

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and non-idempotent safety profile is covered. The description adds only the '(admin)' tier label and says nothing about duplicate-name behavior, permission validation, or required authorization — gaps that matter for a non-idempotent create. Credit is limited because the annotations do most of the work, but the description leaves real behavioral questions unanswered.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the subsequent toolset and parameter list duplicate information already present in the title and schema. It is not bloated, yet those sections do not earn their space.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the tool is largely self-documenting. However, for a non-idempotent admin mutation the description should at least hint at authorization requirements and duplicate-name handling; it does not, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter list repeats the schema descriptions verbatim (name, permissions, description) without adding meaning — it does not explain the nested 'scope' format or give examples like 'webhook:read' beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Create a new role with specific permissions (admin)'. An agent can distinguish this from get_role, update_role, delete_role, or list_roles among the many contract-testing siblings. The parenthetical '(admin)' signals the toolset tier, though it does little beyond the title.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as update_role or list_roles, nor any prerequisites (e.g. required admin scope) or what happens if a role with the same name exists. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create' and the '(admin)' tag.

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