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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-readonly and non-destructive, but the description adds critical behavior: permission gates, status reset to 'pending', recording of prior assignee/status, and a 30-second undo window. These details are not derivable from the annotations and directly affect whether and how an agent should call it.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose first, constraints second, side effects and next action third. Every sentence adds information and the critical constraints are 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 tool has 22 parameters, 5% schema description coverage, and no output schema, yet the description never explains how to specify the new assignee or which optional fields are used. It covers behavioral constraints well but leaves the agent without enough parameter guidance for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is only 5% across 22 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It implies that a new assignee (assigned_to) and status changes are involved, but it never names assigned_to or explains which of the many optional fields (title, due_at, priority, etc.) are meaningful for reassignment. Most parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: 'Hands an assignment to a different tenant member.' It clearly distinguishes reassignment from other team-assignment operations and names the undo sibling, so an agent can identify the tool 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 description gives explicit preconditions (only original assigner or admin+, never self-reassign, never terminal rows) and points to team_assignment_undo_reassign as the follow-up. It does not explicitly contrast with team_assignment_update, but the conditions make the intended use clear.

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