roles_update_role_setting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It reveals auth requirements (admin permissions), effect scope (affects all users), and a constraint (value type match). However, it does not mention error behavior or response format. This is good but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured: a short summary, followed by bullet-pointed workflow tips, and a usage example. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary text.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, effects, and usage tips. However, it lacks any mention of return values or error handling, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. For a simple update tool, this is mostly adequate but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds a JSON example and a constraint on value type ('should match original setting'), which provides additional semantic 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 ('Update a role setting') and specifies the resource. It is distinct from siblings like roles_add_role_setting (add) and roles_delete_role_setting (delete). The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicit workflow tips: setting must already exist, use roles/get_role_settings to view current settings, changes affect all users with this role, and value type must match. It also notes the requirement for admin permissions. This gives clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.

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