update_project_role

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by naming the PUT route, noting edition/license/permission dependencies, and warning that some Community routes return 404 or empty lists. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not detail the exact effects of changing role permissions.

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 front-loaded with the core action and proceeds to availability constraints and endpoint details without padding. The sentences are reasonably compact, though the phrasing is somewhat fragmented and could be organized more cleanly.

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 availability constraints and the endpoint, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, for a destructive nested-body mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, it leaves key gaps around body field meaning and the concrete effect of updating a role.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It says 'Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings,' and the endpoint path implies project_id and role_slug, but it does not explain the required body fields slug, name, and permissions or the meaning of permissions.

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: 'update project role.' It also gives the endpoint PUT /project/{project_id}/roles/{role_slug}, which confirms the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish this from create_project_role, delete_project_role, or update_global_role, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 provides useful availability context: 'Availability depends on Semaphore edition, license, and permissions; some Community routes return 404 or empty lists.' However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of create_project_role, update_global_role, or get_project_role, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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