identity_update_group_roles_on_organization

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: deprecation status, the replacement endpoint, and that email notifications are ignored by the Identity Service. It does not explain the return behavior or the full effect of removing roles, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 and replacement path are front-loaded, which is the most important information. The access-policy table is somewhat verbose but earns its place by clarifying authorization; overall the description is appropriately structured for a deprecated administrative 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?

The description covers deprecation, migration, authorization, and a relevant behavioral note about notifications. The input schema is rich and there is no output schema, so the main remaining gap is that return values and precise role-removal effects are not described, but the definition is otherwise complete for an agent to avoid or correctly invoke this deprecated tool.

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%, and the nested body schema documents rolesToAdd, rolesToRemove, serviceDefinitionId, and notification fields in detail. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or usage meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: updating group roles on an organization, reinforced by the PATCH endpoint and a clear [DEPRECATED] label. It distinguishes this from read-oriented siblings such as identity_get_group_roles_on_organization by its mutation intent, though it does not name sibling tools 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?

It explicitly tells the agent not to use this deprecated tool and points to the replacement API path. The access-policy table further clarifies which roles can invoke it, giving strong when-to-use and permission context.

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