taiga_roles_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds '(partial)' which hints at PATCH-like semantics, but it does not explain how missing fields are handled, whether the permissions array is replaced or merged, or any authentication or side-effect information.

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 an efficient single sentence, front-loaded with the action. Every word adds meaning, though it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than concise completeness.

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?

This tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description. The description is far too sparse to guide correct invocation, leaving the agent to guess about parameter meanings, update semantics, and response format.

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 only 20% (only 'id' is described). The description itself does not explain any parameters. Field names like 'order' and 'computable' are ambiguous, and the tool description does not compensate for the low schema 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 'Update a role (partial)' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and the 'partial' qualifier distinguishes it from a full replacement. The sibling tools include roles_create, roles_get, and roles_delete, making this uniquely the update operation.

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 verb 'update' – if you need to modify an existing role, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over create from roles_create or any prerequisites like needing the role ID first.

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