zitadel_create_project_role

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about duplicate role keys, required permissions, or side effects — so it contributes almost nothing beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the key convention as supporting detail. No filler or redundancy.

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 create mutation with 100% schema coverage and annotations handling safety and idempotency, the description is adequate. It is still thin on failure behavior (e.g., duplicate roleKey in an idempotent tool), but the structured fields carry most of the load.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's note about "admin"/"standard" keys merely repeats the schema's own roleKey description, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (role in a Zitadel project), which clearly separates it from siblings like zitadel_list_project_roles. It does not explicitly name an alternative to differentiate further, but the 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?

The description gives a key-vocabulary convention ("admin" or "standard") and cross-references zitadel_provision_user, which implies when the standardized model applies. However, it never states when to create a custom role instead, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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