Создать или изменить роль

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: preset roles (owner, administrator, etc.) are immutable, and the only way to modify them is to copy first via copy_of. This goes beyond the structured annotations and informs the agent of an important side effect/restriction, though it doesn't cover all potential side effects like auth requirements or return behavior.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function (create/update), and the second adds a critical caveat about presets. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, uses no filler, and every word adds value. This is concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (create/update) and the key constraint (presets require copy_of). The schema handles parameter details, and the description provides enough context for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. It could mention that permissions are replaced entirely, but that's already in the schema description, so the overall completeness is high.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself doesn't explain individual parameters, but it reinforces the semantics of 'copy_of' by explaining why it's needed for preset roles. This adds some contextual meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already does a good job describing each parameter, including the replace-not-append behavior for 'permissions'.

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 clearly states the tool's function: creating a custom role or modifying an existing one in a case. It uses specific verbs ('заводит', 'меняет') and the resource ('роль'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like roles_delete and other *_save tools. The additional note about preset roles not being editable further clarifies its scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (create or modify a role) and an explicit constraint: preset roles cannot be edited directly; you must use copy_of. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., roles_delete for deletion), but the create/edit distinction is clear for the intended use case.

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