identity_patch_user_roles_in_organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: deprecation status, the one-organization constraint, and detailed access policy. It stops short of explaining the effect of adding/removing roles or what the PATCH response contains.

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 warning is correctly front-loaded, followed by the replacement reference and access policy. The access-policy table and endpoint line add bulk, but they are relevant for a deprecated privileged mutation tool.

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 deprecated privileged role-editing tool with a nested request body and no output schema, the description covers the most important context: deprecation, replacement path, access restrictions, and the one-organization constraint. Parameters are fully covered by the schema and safety traits by annotations, though mutation return behavior and role-removal impact are not described.

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 the input schema already documents userId, orgId, and the nested body fields including rolesToAdd and rolesToRemove. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the general purpose and access policy, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: "Edit the user's roles" in an organization, and the PATCH endpoint reinforces the scope. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling identity tools such as identity_get_user_roles_in_organization or identity_patch_user_service_roles_in_organization, so it falls short of a 5.

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 is front-loaded with "[DEPRECATED]" and says to use a replacement API instead, which gives strong when-not-to-use guidance. It also lists access-policy exclusions for Organization Member and Service Account. The replacement is a REST path rather than a named sibling MCP tool, so the alternative is clear but not fully integrated into the tool ecosystem.

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