parse_create_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the master key requirement and the mandatory ACL, which are critical for a create operation. However, it doesn't detail side effects such as failure modes (e.g., duplicate role) or what the response contains, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a concrete example and key constraints (mandatory ACL, master key) without excessive filler. The length is justified by the need to clarify the non-trivial ACL field.

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 nested object structure, required ACL, and master key requirement, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, the required fields, an input example, and an authentication note. It doesn't describe return values, but that is not critical for a create operation, and the schema fills in the parameter 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?

The schema already includes descriptions for all nested properties (ACL, name, roles, users), so the baseline is high. The description adds value by explaining the ACL structure with an example, clarifying that ACL is mandatory, and noting that users/roles arrays are optional. This goes beyond the schema to provide semantic meaning.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Crea' (create) and resource 'nuevo rol en Parse Server', clearly stating the purpose is access control. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_get_role, parse_update_role, and parse_delete_role, which cover other lifecycle operations.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating a new role), and explicitly mentions the master key requirement and mandatory ACL field. It doesn't spell out 'do not use if the role already exists', but the word 'nuevo' (new) implies it, making the usage context clear without explicit exclusions.

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