Get Role Elevation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description proactively resolves the obvious tension by stating 'Elevating changes no instance data', so the agent understands that elevate mutates session state only. It also discloses that elevation is proven to hold, which is real behavioral context beyond annotations. It stops short of saying whether elevation persists across calls or expires, and openWorldHint=true goes unaddressed.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, but the front-loading is weak: the opening sentence is a convoluted fragment ('The elevated privilege roles ... this user may elevate to, as the Elevate Role dialog offers them') that delays the key fact that this tool can also perform elevation. A cleaner ordering would state the read behavior first, then the conditional write.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (the roles the user may elevate to), the side effect of elevate, and the no-instance-mutation guarantee. What is missing is the safety workflow (confirm with the user before elevating) at the description level and any indication of what 'proves it holds' returns to the caller.

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 both the elevate and instance parameters are already fully documented in structured form. The description reinforces elevate's purpose (session elevation to security_admin, proof-of-hold) but adds no syntax, default, or failure-mode detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 names a concrete resource (elevated privilege roles such as security_admin, mirroring the Elevate Role dialog) and a concrete conditional action (with elevate, elevate and prove the session holds). An agent can distinguish this from the ACL tools, which it explicitly references. The first sentence is a fragment-heavy construction, so the verb is implicit rather than stated, which keeps it off 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?

Usage is only implied: the description hints that this is the prerequisite for ACL work by naming security_admin as 'the role the ACL tools use' in the schema, but the description itself never says 'call this before ACL tools' or when to prefer it over anything else. The critical 'ask the user first' guard is present only in the schema, not front-loaded in the description.

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