bookstack_roles_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key fields. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing all updatable aspects or adding brief context.

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 the complexity (6 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances needed for a mutation tool. With no annotations to cover safety or side effects, the description should do more to compensate.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description lists some updatable fields (name, description, permission settings), which aligns with parameters like 'display_name', 'description', and 'permissions', but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a role's details'), specifying what fields can be updated (name, description, permission settings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bookstack_roles_create' (creation) and 'bookstack_roles_delete' (deletion), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bookstack_permissions_update', which might handle permissions separately. The purpose is clear but could be more specific about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing role ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new roles), or refer to sibling tools like 'bookstack_roles_create' or 'bookstack_permissions_update'. Usage is implied by the verb 'Update', but explicit context is lacking.

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