create-role

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action of creating a role, omitting details about permissions, duplicate handling, response format, or side effects—common expectations for a mutation tool.

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 waste. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though it is slightly terse in behavioral detail.

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 simple create tool with one fully documented parameter, the description is adequate but lacks critical context about return values, error conditions, or how the role integrates with the broader RBAC toolset. With no output schema or annotations, some additional detail would improve completeness.

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 'name' parameter is clearly described with an example. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'create' and identifies the resource 'role' within the context of role-based access control. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-role, query-roles, and create-object, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 such as get-role or add-users-to-role. The context is only implied by the tool name and description, with no explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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