Set up roles in order (admin)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/open-world profile is given. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the upsert rule ("matched by name are updated, others created") and the ordering side effect. What it omits is significant for a destructive tool: whether an updated role's existing permissions/colour are overwritten, whether ordering shifts other roles, and any rate-limit or audit implications (beyond the reason param).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the ordering rule; nothing is padded. "Colours are hex" is slightly redundant with the schema's pattern constraint, but it still earns its place as a quick orientation for the colour 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?

For a two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, upsert rule, ordering semantics, and colour format, which is enough for an agent to call it. The remaining shortfalls are the undocumented permissions vocabulary and the unstated return value, which are moderate rather than blocking.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does for the key semantics: array order maps to role position ("listed top to bottom, then order them that way"), name is the matching key, and colour format is hex. It does not explain the permissions array at all — which permission strings are valid, and whether they replace or merge with existing permissions — which is a real gap given the destructive hint.

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?

Specific verb and resource: "Create or update several roles at once" plus "order them that way" identifies this as a batch upsert-and-position tool. The batch framing implicitly differentiates it from single-role siblings like discord_admin_create_role and discord_admin_edit_role, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (use this to set up multiple roles in one ordered pass) rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as discord_admin_bulk_roles, discord_admin_reorder, or discord_admin_create_role, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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