Contract Testing: Admin Update Role

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

Annotations already establish that this is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the role must already exist ('existing role') and labeling the operation as admin-level, which helps the agent understand authorization scope. There is no contradiction with 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?

The opening sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Toolset: Admin' line and the full parameter list duplicate information already present in the annotations and schema, adding unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple and all four parameters are fully documented in the schema, with annotations covering mutation, idempotence, and safety. However, there is no output or response information, and no explanation of side effects or when to prefer this over related role operations, which leaves some contextual 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%, and the parameter block in the description merely restates the schema's definitions for roleId, name, permissions, and description. No additional semantic detail, value formats, or behavioral constraints are provided beyond what the structured schema already offers.

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 action and resource: 'Update an existing role's name and permissions (admin).' The word 'existing' distinguishes it from role creation, and the resource and updatable fields are clear. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus admin_create_role, admin_delete_role, or role-assignment tools. The description only restates the operation and the toolset; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing cues.

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