save_roles_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Saves' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this overwrites existing data, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. The phrase 'to state' is ambiguous and adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the action and parameter details. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the second sentence could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter structure but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or error handling, making it incomplete for a mutation tool without annotations.

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?

The description adds some semantics by specifying that each role should have 'name', 'description', and 'permissions', which clarifies the expected structure of array items. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter ('roles'), this partially compensates but doesn't fully explain the parameter's purpose or constraints (e.g., format of 'permissions'). Baseline is 3 due to schema coverage being low but description providing some value.

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 the action ('Saves user roles/permissions to state') and specifies the resource ('roles/permissions'), but it's vague about what 'to state' means (e.g., persistent storage, session state, or configuration file). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_database_plan' or 'save_route_plan', which have similar naming patterns but unclear distinctions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether roles must be validated first), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'save_organization_context' or 'save_test_plan', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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