identity_patch_org_roles

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false), so the safety bar is lower. The description adds access-policy context — which roles may call it and that Service Accounts and Org Members may not — which is genuinely useful authorization info not in annotations. It does not disclose what the patch actually changes (adds and removes role assignments for a list of users) beyond what the name implies.

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 deprecation notice is correctly front-loaded, but the bulk of the text is a markdown table of access-policy rows with malformed HTML entities (❌) that render as garbage rather than a check or cross. The table consumes most of the definition while conveying only two facts: operator and owner may call it, members and service accounts may not.

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 is a non-idempotent write with a nested body object and no output schema, and the description never explains what a patch call does to existing role bindings or what the response looks like. The deprecation redirect points to a URL rather than a usable sibling tool, so an agent has no actionable migration path. Authorization is the only completeness strength.

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 100%, so both parameters and the nested body fields are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description contributes nothing about orgId or the body shape, and the trailing PATCH path merely restates the schema, so no credit above baseline.

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?

"Edit roles" names a verb and a resource but leaves the scope ambiguous: it does not say whose roles, on what container, or that it adds/removes role bindings per user. The [DEPRECATED] marker and the raw PATCH path are the most informative parts, and they still require the reader to parse a URL template to know the target resource.

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 does say when not to use it (deprecated) and offers a replacement, which is real guidance. However the replacement is a raw REST path (/cloudapi/1.0.0/users) rather than any of the sibling identity_* tools, so an agent cannot act on it, and no condition distinguishes it from identity_patch_user_roles_in_organization or identity_update_group_roles_on_organization.

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