auth_set_role_hints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool mutates role hints and that these hints affect capability gating, but it omits important traits such as whether the update is persistent, whether it replaces or merges existing hints, whether authentication is required, and what side effects occur. This is minimal disclosure for a state-changing operation.

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, direct sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though the lack of additional context limits its usefulness.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, but the description leaves critical gaps: the CSV format is undocumented, the meaning of role hints is unstated, and there is no context about when this should be called in an auth flow. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based solely on the provided description.

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 schema covers 0% of parameter descriptions, and the description does not mention role_hints_csv at all. The parameter name implies a comma-separated list of roles, but the description adds no information about acceptable values, CSV structure, or ordering. This leaves the agent unable to construct a correct invocation without external knowledge.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'role hints' and ties it to 'capability gating,' making the core operation clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like auth_set_access_token or whoami because it targets hint data rather than credentials or status. However, it does not explain what a role hint is, so it falls short of fully disambiguating the tool's role.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auth_set_access_token or can_execute_tool. It implies the operation is for modifying capability-gating inputs, but does not state prerequisites, ordering, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and schema.

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