aap_assign_role

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds minor context: where to source role IDs and that it returns a JSON confirmation string. It does not disclose side effects like idempotency or required permissions, but given the annotation coverage, it crosses the minimum threshold.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every line contributes, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 simple role-assignment tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: parameters and return type. It could mention idempotency or required permissions, but the annotations and schema already cover safety and parameter needs. The output schema is marked as present, so the return string is sufficient context.

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?

The schema already includes descriptions for user_id and role_id, including the hint to get IDs from resource role endpoints. The tool description repeats this information nearly verbatim, adding minimal value beyond packaging the two parameters under 'params'. The extra clarity of naming the assignment source is redundant with the schema.

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 opens with 'Assign an RBAC role to an AAP user', which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aap_revoke_role and add/remove user to team.

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 implies when to use this tool by naming the action, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The hint about role IDs from /api/v2/roles/ or resource role lists provides a partial context, but there's no clear 'use this for granting, use revoke_role for removing' guidance.

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