Create role

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

Annotations indicate a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the permission format ('never raw bitfields'), which is beyond the schema. It does not disclose other side effects or prerequisites, but given the annotations, the safety profile is established.

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 two concise sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the permission note adds essential detail without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively brief. It does not explain return values or failure modes, but the annotations cover the safety profile. The permission guideline is helpful, yet the lack of documentation for several parameters and no output schema means the agent may still face ambiguity in invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The description directly clarifies the 'permissions' parameter by explaining it expects permission names and explicitly warns against raw bitfields, adding value over the schema's minimal description. However, other parameters like 'color', 'hoist', and 'mentionable' are left unexplained, and with schema coverage at 29%, the description only partially compensates.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('role in a guild'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_guild or create_channel. The scope 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 description provides clear context ('in a guild') and a specific operational guideline (permissions as names, not bitfields), which helps the agent format inputs correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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