Roles: create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond them: no note on required permissions, whether duplicate role names are rejected, what happens to permissions on the new role, or what the call returns.

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?

A single four-word phrase, fully front-loaded with no filler. It earns credit for efficiency, though it sits close to the line where brevity becomes under-specification.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, the schema fully documents both parameters, and there is no output schema to explain, so the gaps are modest. Still, a creation tool that never mentions name-uniqueness behavior or permission requirements leaves the agent with open questions.

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% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema ('Role name', 'Optional description'). The description adds no extra meaning such as naming constraints, uniqueness rules, or format expectations, so the 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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Create a new role') that unambiguously matches the tool name and cannot be confused with write siblings like roles_delete or roles_permissions_add. It stops short of differentiating itself from any sibling or scoping what a role contains, so it is clear but minimal.

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 tool, what prerequisites must exist (e.g. whether related roles/permissions tooling must run first), or when an alternative such as roles_permissions_add is the right choice. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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