projects_assign_pricing_groupPut a project team member on a billing rate group. Replaces any existing group for that member on the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| employee_id | Yes | employees.id of an existing project team member. | |
| pricing_group_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses the most important behavioral trait: it replaces any existing pricing group for the member on the project. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) and warns the agent of an overwrite, though it does not cover prerequisites or reversibility.
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?
One concise sentence with the action front-loaded and a meaningful behavioral caveat added immediately. No redundancy or filler.
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 core behavior and replacement semantics are covered, which is adequate for a simple assignment tool. However, it does not mention return values, whether the pricing group must already exist, or how this relates to the unassign sibling, leaving some context incomplete.
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?
With only 33% schema coverage, only employee_id is documented. The description maps 'project team member' to employee_id and 'billing rate group' to pricing_group_id, but project_id remains implicit and no ID format or lookup guidance is given. It adds partial meaning but does not fully compensate for the schema gaps.
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 clearly states the action ('Put a project team member on a billing rate group') and resource, and the added behavior 'Replaces any existing group' distinguishes it from unassign/update tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the semantics are precise enough to avoid confusion.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated. The replacement behavior suggests this is the tool for assigning or changing a member's rate group, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus projects_unassign_pricing_group or other project tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.