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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving the description to carry the behavioral burden. The description does so strongly: it reveals audit requirements, the failure mode of "rejected with 422 and nothing is written," and the rule that the actor is never guessed from the assignee. It also clarifies how attribution can be satisfied via lease, acting_worker_id, or human/org-owner status.

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?

Four dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no redundant filler. Every sentence earns its place by adding a necessary constraint, failure behavior, or identity rule.

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, the description covers the highest-risk elements: cross-agency auditing, attribution prerequisites, and failure behavior. It leaves minor gaps around recipient disambiguation and lease timing, but those are secondary to safe and correct invocation.

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 coverage is only 44%, so the description adds important meaning beyond the schema, especially for allow_cross_agency and acting_worker_id. However, it leaves some parameter relationships underspecified, such as to_id versus to, to_kind, and lease_seconds. Overall it substantially compensates for sparse schema coverage but not completely.

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 the action verb "Reassign" and the resource "a task" with the recipient scope: "another worker or human with a required note." This clearly distinguishes it from generic task updates and from claim-related tools. The title reinforces the same transfer semantics.

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?

Provides clear context for use: cross-agency handoffs require allow_cross_agency and are audited, and attribution prerequisites are explicitly described, including the 422 rejection when they are missing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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