Создать или изменить роль

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

Annotations already establish this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: preset roles are immutable and require copy_of to be configured. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.

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 compact sentences with purpose front-loaded and the critical preset/copy_of caveat delivered immediately after. There is no filler; every clause earns its place, and the structure leads with the action before the constraint.

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 mutation tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the hardest part — preset immutability and the copy_of path — and the schema covers all parameters. However, it does not state what a successful call returns, does not warn about side effects on members already holding the edited role, and gives no hint of required-fields expectations for creation.

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 every parameter is individually documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds modest cross-parameter reasoning by linking copy_of to the preset restriction, but the schema already explains 'role' ('Не указывайте, чтобы создать новую') and 'copy_of' ('обычно готовый пресет') — the description contributes little semantic content beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Заводит в деле свою роль с нужным набором прав или меняет существующую' — creates a custom role in a case or modifies an existing one. It also clarifies what the tool is not for by calling out that preset roles (владелец, администратор, конструктор, оператор, наблюдатель) cannot be edited, which separates this from roles_delete and other *_save siblings.

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: use it to create a custom role or edit an existing one, with an explicit exclusion — 'Готовые роли ... правке не поддаются' — and a prescribed workaround via copy_of. It stops short of a 5 because it never names alternative tools (e.g., roles_delete for removal) and leaves the create-vs-update decision to the schema's 'role' parameter note.

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