Replace shared device roles (DESTRUCTIVE)

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

Despite readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true already present in annotations, the description adds valuable context: it clarifies the destructive whole-array replacement, the revision-based optimistic concurrency (failure on concurrent change), and the authentication requirement (editor/owner role). No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then covers the workflow, safety, and prerequisites without redundant filler. Each sentence adds distinct value, and the structure guides the agent from 'what' to 'how' efficiently.

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 has only 3 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, and the description covers purpose, workflow, concurrency, and auth. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what a successful write returns (e.g., the new revision), which could matter for chaining calls, but this is not critical given the agent can infer from the read tool's pattern.

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 100% and each parameter already has a description, so the baseline is 3. However, the description reinforces meaning by calling roles the 'complete new shared device-role vocabulary' and explaining that revision is the quoted ETag from the matching read tool, adding interpretive guidance beyond the schema's literal pattern.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Replace an organisation's shared device-role vocabulary') and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read tool get_org_roles by describing it as a whole-array write. It also references get_org_roles directly, making the read/write pair unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to first read with get_org_roles, preserve needed entries, and pass back the returned revision. It also notes the concurrency protection ('fails rather than overwriting a concurrent change') and the required editor/owner role, giving clear when-to-use context and prerequisites.

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