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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'confirm-gated' does disclose the two-phase preview/execute behavior plus the move (overwrite) semantics. It says nothing about permissions required, what happens to a coach's prior location assignment, or side effects, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the confirm-gating caveat is placed at the end where a reader will catch it. It is efficient, though terse given the tool's complexity.

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 6-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 17% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits permissions, the meaning of makePrimary, and the effect on any existing assignment.

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 17% (confirm is the lone documented parameter), so the description must compensate. It hints at role and the coach/location pair but leaves organizationId and especially makePrimary unexplained in both the description and the 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 states a specific verb (assign or move) and resource (a coach to a location) with the organizational scope, so the agent knows this is an assignment operation. It does not, however, explicitly separate itself from near-neighbors like remove_coach_location_assignment or update_organization_coach_role.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implied 'assign or move'. No alternatives are named, so the agent gets no routing help against the many role/coach-management siblings.

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