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

The annotations only declare it as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description goes well beyond that: cross-agency handoffs are audited, attribution is mandatory with three acceptable paths (active lease, owned acting_worker_id, or human/org-owner), the call fails with 422 and writes nothing on missing attribution, and the actor is never inferred from the assignee. That is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

The mutation behavior and attribution rule are front-loaded, and the doc link is placed last where it belongs. Sentences are dense but each carries a distinct constraint; no filler. Slightly long, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 44% param coverage, the description covers the highest-risk behaviors (auditing, attribution, empty-write failure). The gaps are the un-described recipient/lease parameters, which an agent may need to set correctly for auto_lease and lease_seconds.

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 44%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for allow_cross_agency and acting_worker_id (ownership verification, lease override), but leaves note, to_id, to_kind, and lease_seconds without guidance in either the schema or the description. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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+resource+recipient: 'Reassign a task to another worker or human with a required note.' An agent can immediately tell this transfers ownership of a task. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like claim_task or accept_task, which are the nearest alternatives, so it misses the top band.

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?

It gives prerequisites and a failure mode (cross-agency needs allow_cross_agency: true; attribution required or 422) but never states when to choose this over claim_task, accept_task, or update_task. Usage context is implied through preconditions rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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