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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the two-phase confirmation protocol: the tool is proposed, never performed directly, returns status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and plan_token, and the write only happens after confirm_action. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive write.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the id convention, then the confirmation contract. No wasted wording.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return shape (status, action_id, plan_token) and the follow-up call. The remaining gap is the unexplained assignment_id and project_id parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains assignee_id well (source of the id, empty string means unassign) but says nothing about assignment_id or project_id, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Hand an assignment to a different person,' which is clearly a reassignment operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from erp_update_assignment, which could plausibly also change an assignee, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 concrete usage context: name the person by id from erp_list_employees, and pass an empty assignee_id to leave the assignment unassigned. It does not state when to prefer this over erp_update_assignment, but the operational guidance is clear.

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