haops_update_role_template

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

Discloses key behaviors: transactional versioning (flip isCurrent, insert at version+1), partial updates, no-op returns unchanged row, immutability of name and isSystem. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and does so comprehensively.

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?

Four concise sentences front-load purpose and constraints. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy. Efficient and scannable.

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?

Covers all major behaviors: admin requirement, feature flag, transactional versioning, partial updates, no-op, immutability. Missing mention of return format (compact vs verbose via the verbose parameter) is a minor gap given no output schema.

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 already describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining partial update semantics ('only supply fields you want to change') and immutability, which aids correct usage beyond schema details.

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 explicitly states it publishes a new version of an existing role template, clearly distinguishing from create, deprecate, and transition tools. It specifies admin-only and feature flag requirements, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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?

Provides good guidance: admin-only, feature flag, partial update semantics, no-op behavior. Includes immutable fields. However, it could explicitly state when to use alternatives like create_role_template or transition_role_template, though sibling context helps.

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