Asignar permisos a un rol

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 does reveal a key behavior—that the assignment replaces the current one—which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether the operation is atomic, what happens to existing permissions not listed, whether it requires specific permissions, or how errors are handled. The replacement note is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately states the most important behavioral nuance (replacement). There is zero wasted wording, and the sentence is easy to parse. It achieves maximum efficiency for the information it conveys.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the lack of usage guidelines and limited behavioral disclosure (beyond replacement) leaves gaps. For a mutation tool with no annotations, an agent might need to know whether the operation is reversible, whether it is idempotent, or if there are side effects on related entities. The description covers the core purpose but not the full context needed for confident invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters: 'id' (ID del rol) and 'permissions' (IDs de los permisos a asignar). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters. Since the schema covers everything, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not elevate it.

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 action ('Asigna permisos a un rol') and specifies the resource (permissions to a role). It also includes a critical scoping detail—'(reemplaza la asignación actual)'—which distinguishes it from other permission-related tools like list_role_permissions or update_role. The verb and resource are specific, and the replacement note makes the intent 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 implies usage through the 'reemplaza la asignación actual' note, suggesting this tool is for setting a role's full permission set rather than incrementally adding. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_role or assign_user_roles, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No alternative tools are named, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list.

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