assume_role

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

Discloses fee, pinning of contract version+hash and Brain state_hash, and the constraint of one open session per role. While no annotations are present, the description covers key behavioral traits. Could be more explicit about idempotency or error states.

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?

Four sentences pack critical information: action, fee, pinned data, constraints, and pairing with release_role. No redundant information; front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 the sibling tools and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's role in the workflow (session open/close). It covers prerequisites, constraints, and side effects. Could mention return value or error conditions for more 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?

The description mentions 'project' and 'role_id' implicitly through the narrative, but does not explicitly describe the parameters. The optional 'platform' parameter is not discussed. Schema description coverage is low (33%), and the description partially compensates by contextualizing the required parameters but not the optional one.

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?

Clearly states the tool assumes a project role under a Verifiable Role Contract, opening an audited Role Session with a specified fee. Distinguishes from sibling release_role by framing it as the opening counterpart.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: at session start, with active contracts only, and that only one session per role is allowed. Provides the complementary action (release_role) and the prerequisite (active contract).

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