set_member_roles

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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosure for a mutation tool. It says nothing about required permissions, role hierarchy limits, whether removing roles is reversible, that changes are written to the server audit log, or that a dry_run mode exists (that only appears in the schema).

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 no filler or repetition. Brevity here comes at the cost of substance rather than from trimming waste, but the structure itself is clean.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with only a readOnlyHint=false annotation and no output schema, the description leaves notable gaps: no permission or hierarchy preconditions and no mention of the audit-log reason or dry_run behavior. The add/remove duality is captured, which is the core semantics, but the surrounding operational context is missing.

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 coverage is 57%, with bot, reason, server, and dry_run documented but add, remove, and member bare. The description partially compensates by clarifying that add means granting roles and remove means revoking them, and that the target is a member. It adds no syntax or format detail for role identifiers, though.

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 sentence names a specific verb pair and resource: give roles to a member and take roles away. An agent can tell this mutates a member's role set rather than a role object or server permission. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like set_permissions or edit_role, which is the only thing keeping it below a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as needing Manage Roles or a role hierarchy position, and no reference to alternatives like set_permissions for permission overwrites. The agent must infer all routing and preconditions from the name alone.

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