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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond them: it characterizes what is actually changed ('changes a rule and writes nothing to the CRM'), which reassures the agent that despite being a mutation it does not touch CRM records.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The middle sentence enumerating the on-state routing outcome is dense and long, verging on over-explanation, but every sentence carries usable information and there is no filler.

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 simple two-parameter boolean toggle with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both state outcomes, the read alternative, and the fact that it doesn't write to the CRM. The only gap is not disambiguating from the other rule-setting siblings.

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 both parameters (enabled, connection_id) are already documented in the schema. The prose restates the enabled=true/false effect but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: turning on/off the Assignment rule where a CONTACT takes its ACCOUNT's owner. It clearly scopes the behavior and names get_assignment_config as the read counterpart. It doesn't, however, distinguish itself from other setting-mutation siblings like set_assignment_config or set_owner_mode, which an agent could easily confuse for this.

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 explains the effect of each state ('With it on... With it off...') and points to get_assignment_config for the current setting, giving clear context for when to invoke it. It stops short of stating exclusions or contrasting against the other rule-setting siblings.

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