parse_delete_role

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the deletion is permanent, that users with the role lose associated permissions, and that master key authentication is required. This is strong for a destructive operation, though it doesn't detail error cases or response formats, 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the action, the effect on users, and the auth requirement. No redundancy or 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 simple deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, the side effect, and the required authorization. It lacks examples or error handling, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, and the description itself adds no parameter information. The sole parameter is described in the schema (objectId del rol a eliminar), but the tool description does not clarify or enhance this. Since coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate, which it does not, resulting in limited value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Elimina permanentemente un rol de Parse Server') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like parse_delete_object or parse_delete_class by explicitly targeting roles, and it mentions the consequence on users' permissions, further clarifying its scope.

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 this tool: to permanently delete a role, with the explicit prerequisite that a master key is required. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the resource-specific nature makes the usage context clear, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3.

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