update_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, required permissions, return values, or any consequences of the mutation. The description only lists parameters and an example, providing no transparency about what the tool does beyond being a GraphQL mutation.

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 a dense technical dump with a long, truncated example. It is not concise, and the example takes up space without providing complete insight. The structure is list-like but fails to convey the tool's purpose effectively.

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 10 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, this tool needs a thorough description to be usable. The current description only lists parameter names and an incomplete example, leaving the agent without any understanding of what the mutation does, what the input object requires, or what to expect in return.

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 lists all parameter names and provides an example, but the example is truncated and uses placeholders without explaining field meanings. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's type-only descriptions, so a 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 only restates the operation name as 'mutation updateRole' and adds the context 'Access Groups', but does not explicitly state that it updates a role. It is essentially a tautology of the tool name, providing no specific verb+resource clarification beyond the name itself.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_access_group or update_pod. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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