roles_modify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: partial updates ('Pass only fields you want to change') and the requirement that permissions is a base-10 string. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but annotations cover the basic safety traits, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 with clear headers for Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, and Returns. It is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each bullet/statement earns its place without redundant filler.

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 10-parameter modification tool, the description covers the essential selection context: what it does, when to use it, important parameter semantics (permissions format), and return values. The output schema exists, so the return field enumeration is a bonus. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly calling out the permissions parameter as a base-10 Discord permission bitfield and enumerating the updatable properties (name, color, permissions, mentionable, hoist, icon). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though some parameters like unicode_emoji are not individually described.

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 and resource: 'Update a role's properties.' It clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives for reordering (roles_modify_positions) and deletion (roles_delete). This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 'When to use' section lists concrete scenarios such as renaming, recoloring, changing permissions, toggling mentionability/hoist, and setting role icons. The 'When NOT to use' section provides explicit alternatives for reorder and delete operations, giving the agent strong guidance on tool selection.

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