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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent) by disclosing exactly what is written: completed_at stamped, status moved to 'completed', completion_notes persisted when supplied. It also declares the terminal/irreversible nature of the transition and the one remaining exception (assigner deletion), which an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

A single dense sentence with the actor/state precondition front-loaded, followed by effects and terminal-state caveat. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint comes first.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, and irreversibility, which is the critical surface. Remaining gap is what happens on a rejected call (wrong status/wrong user) and which of the 22 schema fields are actually in play.

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 only 5% across 22 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it explains essentially one input (completion_notes) plus the implied id. It does not tell the agent that the remaining ~20 fields (title, due_at, priority, attachments, etc.) should be left unsent on a completion call, leaving real ambiguity about which inputs are meaningful.

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?

States a specific verb ('finishes a job') on a specific resource (team_assignment), and immediately scopes it by actor ('only the assignee') and state ('only from status in_progress'). This clearly separates it from siblings like team_assignment_start, team_assignment_accept, and team_assignment_decline.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (assignee-only, requires in_progress) rather than just 'use this to complete'. It also signals the post-state that rules out team_assignment_update/reassign, and hints that team_assignment_delete remains the escape hatch. It never names those siblings directly, which is the only gap.

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