update_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the critical two-phase behavior: member changes are preview-only unless confirm=true with the expected payload. This is genuinely useful behavioral information, though it does not cover permissions, failure cases, or expected-object details.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every clause earns its place: the write-now behavior and the preview/confirm exception are both stated without 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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description captures the central workflow but omits several details an agent may need: what 'expected' should actually contain, how the preview is obtained, the difference between core and on-demand members, and the purpose of role_id/why. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the input semantics are not fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to name, description, the four member add/remove parameters, confirm, and expected by explaining their relationship. However, it does not address role_id or why, and it does not distinguish core members from on-demand members, leaving important semantics implicit.

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 a specific verb and resource, 'Update a role,' which clearly distinguishes it from create_role, delete_role, get_role, and list_roles. It also narrows the update scope by separating write-now fields (name/description) from previewed member changes, so an agent knows exactly what this tool operates on.

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 gives clear context for how to use the tool: name and description changes write immediately, while member add/remove changes remain in preview unless confirm=true and the preview's expected value is supplied. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like create_role, but the intended usage is clear enough.

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