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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: approving/refusing triggers a push notification, requires a submitted video, and 'sent' is restricted. This meaningfully discloses side effects and prerequisites.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core purpose and field list front-loaded, followed by the critical behavioral caveats. No wasted words or repetition of the schema.

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 description covers all field categories and important constraints, and there is no output schema demanding return-value explanation. However, the contradictory statement about 'sent' leaves an agent with conflicting instructions, preventing a perfect completeness score.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description introduces a direct conflict: it says 'sent' cannot be set here while the schema's status enum explicitly includes 'sent'. This makes the status semantics unreliable for an agent despite the otherwise clear field grouping. The contradiction lowers the value of the description's parameter guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Update an assignment'—and immediately enumerates the mutable aspects: production status, due date, note/brief, and tags. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_assignment and delete_assignment.

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 conditions for approving/refusing (requires a submitted video) and a clear when-not: 'sent' cannot be set here. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the when/when-not guidance is strong enough to guide correct invocation.

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