Create On Call Role

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent with open-world behavior, so the basics of a write are covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it says nothing about required auth level, what happens if a role with the same name exists (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or the fact that the slug is derived and ignored. For a mutation creating a permissions-bearing object, that is a real gap.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, so it is not bloated, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the trailing "from provided data" carries zero information and no useful detail replaces it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, this is a high-complexity nested create with ~28 permission fields, zero schema description coverage, and only minimal annotations, so the description should have covered the permission model and the derived-slug behavior; as written it leaves the agent under-equipped.

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?

There is a single top-level `data` wrapper (JSON:API-style with `type` and `attributes`), and the description never explains that structure or that `slug` is deprecated and ignored. Roughly two dozen `*_permissions` array fields carry no description at all, so the description needed to add meaning about the permission model and instead adds none.

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 pairs the concrete verb "Creates" with the specific resource "On-Call Role", which clearly separates it from sibling readers like get_on_call_role and list_on_call_roles. The qualifier "from provided data" is filler and the definition does not explicitly name update_on_call_role as the alternative, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_on_call_role, list_on_call_roles, or get_on_call_role, and no prerequisites such as the admin-level permissions typically needed to mint a role. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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