add_site_roles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'delegate' implies a write operation with permission changes, the description doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements (hinted by 'auth_token' parameter), notification behavior, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies access rights.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't address key contextual elements like authentication needs, role types, or behavioral implications, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description doesn't compensate by explaining any parameters. It mentions 'site access' and 'user' generally, but provides no details about required inputs like 'site_url', 'user_email', 'role_type', or optional flags like 'is_explicit' and 'should_notify'. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Delegate site access to another user' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('delegate') and resource ('site access'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_site' or 'get_site_roles', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'add_site' (for creating sites) and 'remove_site_role' (for removing roles), the lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases and prerequisites.

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