update-role-permissions

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

No annotations are provided. The description only indicates a write operation ('Update') but lacks details about side effects, authorization requirements, or whether changes are reversible. The behavioral footprint is under-described.

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 single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

For a mutation tool without annotations or output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, side effects, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (role_id, permissions, replace). The overall description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'Update permissions for a specific role' clearly states the action (update) and resource (role permissions). It distinguishes from siblings like get-role-permissions (read) or manage-account-permissions (broader scope). However, it does not specify the replace vs. merge behavior explicitly, which is covered in the schema but not in the description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like manage-account-permissions or get-role-permissions. Given the large number of sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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