superset_role_permission_add

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 prominently warns that the endpoint REPLACES ALL role permissions, highlights that confirm_full_replace is required, and even explains how to perform a single add safely. This goes well beyond what annotations would provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a critical WARNING, followed by clear steps and parameter explanations. It is slightly repetitive because the Args section restates some schema information, but each line adds meaningful context, especially the warning and the single-add procedure.

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 this is a destructive permission-replacement tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential context: the risk, the required confirmation flag, how to obtain permission IDs, and how to achieve a single-add through a get-then-set pattern. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value details is acceptable.

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 adds meaning to all three parameters: role_id is clearly labeled as a Role ID, permission_view_menu_ids is described as the full list with a reference to superset_permission_list, and confirm_full_replace is described as a confirmation flag. However, it calls confirm_full_replace 'REQUIRED' while the input schema marks only role_id and permission_view_menu_ids as required, a slight inconsistency with the structured schema.

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 states 'Set the permissions list for a role (FULL REPLACEMENT).' This uses a specific verb ('Set'), names the resource ('role permissions'), and emphasizes the destructive full-replacement behavior. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like superset_role_permissions_get, which retrieves the list.

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?

It explicitly warns that the endpoint replaces all role permissions and provides a step-by-step workflow for adding a single permission: get current IDs via superset_role_permissions_get, add the new ID, and pass the full list with confirm_full_replace=True. It also tells users where to obtain permission IDs (superset_permission_list), making usage guidance actionable and superior to simple context.

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