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

The 'WRITE:' prefix makes the mutation semantics explicit and 'Reversible with workiz_unassign_job' adds real behavioral value beyond the destructiveHint annotation — an agent learns the change can be undone and how. It does not cover permission requirements or failure behavior, but for a two-parameter write the disclosure is solid and does not contradict the annotation.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the operation type and the core action; no filler, and every clause (reversal path, endpoint) carries information.

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 simple two-required-parameter write with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, reversibility, and endpoint. It omits only peripheral details such as error behavior or prerequisites, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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 the schema already documents both UUID and User, including the exact-name format and a pointer to workiz_list_team. The description's '(by name)' merely echoes the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) plus resource (a team member, by name, to a job) and even names the exact API operation (POST /job/assign/). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings such as workiz_unassign_job, which it explicitly references.

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 clear context for its place in the workflow by naming the inverse operation (workiz_unassign_job) for reversal, and the by-name constraint tells the agent when it needs the team-list tool first. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions versus alternatives like workiz_update_job.

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