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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description explains exactly why: it replaces the previous agent (destructive) and re-notifies on repeat calls (non-idempotent). This corroborates and enriches the annotations with concrete consequences an agent needs before invoking.

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 dense sentence with the operation type and the most consequential behavior (replacement) front-loaded, followed by the notification caveat and endpoint. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 write tool with no output schema, it covers what gets overwritten, notification side effects, idempotency, and the endpoint. It does not mention permission or auth requirements or what happens on invalid job/team combinations, which keeps it below a 5.

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 all four parameters including notify are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal detail — that notify=false suppresses the notification and that repeats re-notify — but gives no extra meaning for job_id, fleet_id, or team_id beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('assign (or reassign) a task to an agent of a team') and adds the key semantic that it replaces any previous agent. The 'WRITE:' prefix and the underlying POST endpoint make the operation type unambiguous, and no sibling tool performs assignment so there is no confusion to resolve.

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?

Makes the use condition clear: this is the tool for assigning or reassigning, and it overwrites prior assignments. It also warns that repeating the call re-notifies, which is practical guidance for avoiding accidental duplicate notifications. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative is named, though none of the listed siblings competes for this job.

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