add_role

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it omits that this is a mutating operation, that it typically requires elevated permissions, that Discord role hierarchy may cause silent failure, and that role assignment is idempotent. Only the bare action is stated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so there is no bloat to trim. The problem is the opposite of verbosity: six words is too thin for a four-parameter mutation tool, leaving no room for the operational context an agent needs.

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?

For a destructive-adjacent mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves major gaps: permission requirements, hierarchy/failure behavior, and the purpose of the optional reason parameter are all absent. An agent could call it correctly only by guessing.

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 compensate for four undocumented parameters, yet it never mentions guild_id, user_id, role_id, or the optional reason. The words "cargo" and "membro" loosely imply role_id and user_id but add no format or constraint detail, and the audit-log reason field is completely unaddressed.

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?

"Atribui um cargo a um membro" names a specific verb (assign) and a specific resource pair (role to member), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling remove_role, which shares nearly identical wording and the same three identifiers.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of create_role, edit_role, or remove_role, no mention of required permissions (e.g., Manage Roles), and no note that the target role must already exist in the guild. The agent must infer all of this from sibling names alone.

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