apply_role_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the Kiln Business plan requirement for the owning organisation (and that it does not restrict viewers), plus that this is a bulk composition rather than a new primitive. It omits permissions/auth needed to grant, idempotency and reversibility, and what happens on partial failure.

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 core capability and the grant_scope relationship are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good. But the remainder is promotional copy about a hypothetical 'Kiln Business' workshop scenario plus an upgrade URL, which does not help an agent invoke the tool and dilutes the payload.

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 permission-granting mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, the description leaves too much unspecified: it never explains the parameter roles, whether grants are additive or idempotent, or what the call returns. The billing/upgrade framing takes space that should have gone to those details.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. 'To a tenant or team' hints that team_id and tenant_id are alternative targets but never says whether they are optional or mutually exclusive, and role, org_id, and granted_by are completely unexplained.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (Grant), a specific resource (every scope in a role template), and a scope (to a tenant or team) in one call. It also names the primitive it wraps (grant_scope), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either schema.

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 states this tool is 'ergonomic bundling' that 'composes repeated grant_scope under the hood', which tells the agent to prefer this over calling grant_scope repeatedly. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g. single-scope grants, or which of team_id vs tenant_id to supply), leaving some routing to inference.

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