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

Annotations only give destructiveHint=true; the description adds that this is a WRITE operation and that it is reversible via workiz_unassign_job, plus the underlying endpoint. That is genuinely useful risk context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about required permissions or failure modes.

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?

Three terse fragments with zero filler; the WRITE classification is front-loaded so an agent scanning for mutating tools sees it immediately.

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 two-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mutation class, and the undo path. Only the lack of any prerequisite or auth note keeps it short of complete.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the NAME-exactly-as-shown convention and the workiz_list_team pointer. The description's 'by name' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (assign), resource (a team member), and target (a job), with an explicit WRITE marker. It also names the inverse sibling workiz_unassign_job, so the agent can distinguish it from the other job/lead tools at a glance.

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?

Names the reversal path (workiz_unassign_job), which hints at when this tool is the right call, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. whether the job must already exist or the user must be active).

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