roles_delete

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true, the description adds critical behavioral details: irreversibility, impact on all members, the ConfirmRequired security gate, and the need for MCP_DRY_RUN=false. It also states the return payload shape. This is substantial added context.

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 uses compact bolded headers and clear bullets. Every sentence carries essential information without fluff. It is well-organized and front-loads the purpose and danger.

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 destructive mutation tool, the description covers prerequisites (__confirm, MCP_DRY_RUN=false), alternatives, side effects, and return values. Output schema exists, so complete context is provided for safe and correct 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 description coverage is 100% with meaningful descriptions for all four params. The description reiterates the __confirm requirement, but does not add significant semantics beyond the schema since the schema already documents the confirmation and audit log purpose. 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 states 'Delete a role from a guild' with explicit destructive consequences ('All members holding this role lose it'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like roles_create, roles_modify, and members_remove_role.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' (tear down deprecated/integration roles) and 'When NOT to use' (removing from a single user) with a specific alternative sibling tool (members_remove_role). This fully guides selection.

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