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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an authorization requirement (firm OWNER or ADMIN), which is valuable behavior beyond the schema. It omits whether the call is idempotent, what happens if the member is already assigned, and error behavior.

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 short, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the core action leads. The role list is a useful compact enumeration rather than prose. Slightly telegraphic, but every element earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a 4-parameter mutation with no annotations, the definition is thin: it never explains firm_id's role, conflict handling, or reversibility, leaving an agent with gaps before a write.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents the valid role values (PRIMARY, ADVISOR, SUPPORT), which the schema does not (no enum, only a default), but leaves client_id, member_id, and especially firm_id (default "") unexplained.

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+resource: 'Assign a team member to an EAM client.' An agent can distinguish it from the read-only sibling get_client_team. However, it does not name an alternative or clarify scope beyond the one sentence, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Needs a firm OWNER or ADMIN' gives a real prerequisite for invoking the tool, which is useful context. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus updating an existing assignment or reading the team via get_client_team, so usage is only implied.

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