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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals a key behavioral nuance: the operation may either execute immediately or file a proposal for approval, and the response status field indicates which occurred. This is useful conditional behavior that annotations do not convey, though it does not discuss permissions or side effects beyond the assignment itself.

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 long, front-loads the core action, and then adds the essential conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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, combined with the fully covered schema and annotations, gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly. It explains the one conditional outcome that matters and points to the response status field, though it does not fully describe the response shape since no output schema is available.

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 the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: assign a contact as a speaker on a session. This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like remove_session_speaker, schedule_session, and create_speaker_task, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 intended context is clear: use this when assigning a contact to speak on a session. It also explains the important contextual behavior that the action may execute immediately or become a proposal depending on org settings, though it does not name any alternative tool or explicitly state when not to use it.

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