Assign user to a specific role

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the required permission, which is genuine value, but stays silent on the preview-by-default behavior (dry_run defaults true) beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but the second sentence largely restates the first ('Assigns user to a role specified by its ID') rather than adding information; only the permission clause earns its place.

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?

With annotations, a 100% documented 4-param schema and an output schema, the essentials are covered. Still, the description omits the mutation's operational gate (dry_run preview plus confirm=YES) and the permission's effect on role scope, leaving a gap for a destructive write 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 all four parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the role is identified by ID and adds nothing on role_id format, user_id format, or interaßction with confirm/dry_run.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Assign user to a specific role') plus the permission gate ('Perm: assign_roles'). It is distinguishable from sibling role tools like delete_role_user and list_role_users by the 'assign' verb, though it does not name those siblings 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?

Usage context is implied by the name and the stated permission prerequisite ('assign_roles'), which tells the agent a required capability. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the dry_run/confirm two-step that governs actually executing the assignment.

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