Contract Testing: Admin Update Role

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description ('Update') is consistent with them. It adds that this is an Admin-toolset mutation, but does not say whether all fields are replaced or only supplied ones are changed, nor what admin privileges are required — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 tight and front-loaded, but the appended toolset/parameters section duplicates the schema word-for-word and adds length without information. Roughly half the text does not earn its place.

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 annotations and an output schema both present, the description only needs to cover purpose and mutation semantics. It covers purpose but leaves the replace-vs-merge question and permission prerequisites unstated, which matters for a 3-required-parameter admin mutation.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's parameter block restates those exact descriptions verbatim (e.g. 'UUID of the role to update', 'Permissions granted by this role') without adding format, constraint, or example detail, so baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Update an existing role's name and permissions', which clearly separates it from siblings such as contract-testing_admin_create_role and contract-testing_admin_delete_role. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the scope of the operation is unambiguous.

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 '(admin)' marker and 'Toolset: Admin' line imply this is a privileged operation and give some context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus create/delete role or set_user_roles. The agent must infer the usage context from the name 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.