superset_group_add_roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states the key behavior 'without removing existing ones,' but does not mention idempotency, duplicate handling, required permissions, or failure behavior. It adds some context but is not comprehensive.

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 concise, with one sentence stating purpose and a clean Args block for parameters. No redundant information; it is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 mutation with two parameters, the description covers the action and parameters. It lacks information about edge cases (e.g., duplicate role IDs, group existence) and auth requirements, but the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable. It does not explain return values but those are likely in the output schema.

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 provides an Args section that explains both parameters: 'group_id: Group ID' and 'role_ids: List of role IDs to add.' This adds meaning beyond the raw types (integer and array of integers), clarifying that role_ids are the roles to be added. It does not specify constraints like non-empty or uniqueness, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 opens with the specific action 'Add roles to a group' and immediately clarifies the non-destructive behavior 'without removing existing ones.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like superset_group_remove_roles and conveys the exact scope.

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 implies when to use this tool (when adding roles while preserving existing assignments) but provides no explicit alternates or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no reference to related tools or conditions such as 'use this instead of group update'.

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