parse_update_role

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation modifies existing roles and requires master key, but it does not clarify whether the ACL is replaced or merged, does not mention return values, error behavior, or reversibility. Some context is added, but substantial gaps remain.

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 action and resource. It includes necessary alternative tooling and auth requirement without fluff, making every word earn its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, auth requirement, and distinguishes user-management operations. However, it lacks behavioral details such as ACL replacement semantics, response format, and error cases. The nested schema adds some context, but the absence of annotations leaves the tool only partially complete.

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 contains a single top-level parameter (inputSchema) with nested properties. The description explicitly mentions 'nombre' and 'ACL', which maps to name and ACL, but it omits objectId and does not explain the inputSchema wrapper. However, the schema itself provides descriptions for each property, so the description adds some semantic value but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb 'Modifica' and the resource 'rol existente', specifying the exact attributes being changed (name or ACL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like parse_add_users_to_role and parse_remove_users_from_role by explicitly redirecting user management operations to those tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context: modify role name/ACL. It also gives direct alternatives for user management ('Para gestionar usuarios del rol usa...') and notes the master key requirement, which is a usage prerequisite.

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