yaaif_user_role_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that this is a privileged mutation requiring users:write, and that ADMIN grants need caller ADMIN status plus confirm_admin_grant=true. It does not discuss idempotency, side effects, or what happens if both email and user_id are supplied, but the key caveats are present.

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 sentences deliver the core action, role enumeration, permission requirement, and the ADMIN-specific confirmation flag. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the main purpose, permissions, and the special ADMIN case, but it omits guidance on how to identify the target user via email versus user_id. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this missing parameter-selection guidance leaves the tool slightly incomplete for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the role parameter by listing valid values and referencing yaaif_roles_list, and it explains confirm_admin_grant's role for ADMIN grants. However, it does not clarify the relationship between email and user_id, which one to prefer, or whether either is required, leaving an important gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a tenant user's platform role'), enumerates the valid role values, and points to yaaif_roles_list for custom roles. This clearly distinguishes it from user listing, creation, and retrieval tools.

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?

It states the required permission (users:write) and the special condition for granting ADMIN, giving the agent actionable context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the permission and ADMIN caveat provide solid guidance.

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