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

Adds the WRITE marker and says it's reversible via workiz_unassign_lead, which is useful beyond the destructiveHint annotation. However, destructiveHint=true suggests an impact the description doesn't reconcile (assign is framed as reversible rather than destructive), and it doesn't note auth/permission requirements.

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, front-loaded fragments: action, reversibility, endpoint. No filler.

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-param write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what, how to reverse, and the endpoint. It's nearly complete, missing only error/permission behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents that User is a name and UUID is the lead's UUID. The description adds only the parenthetical '(by name)', which lightly reinforces the schema's guidance but adds little else.

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) and resource (a team member to a lead), with the write marking up front. It clearly distinguishes from sibling workiz_assign_job by naming the lead resource.

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?

Gives clear context (write operation) and names the reversal alternative workiz_unassign_lead. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like workiz_update_lead, but the implied usage is clear.

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