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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses the conflict guard (rejection when a human edited the story after the agent's last read), names the conflict class implicitly, states that force overwrites a human's newer edit, and that the override is audit-logged. This is exactly the kind of risk context an agent needs before mutating shared state and that annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action then the identifier guidance, then the risk, then the alternative. Minor redundancy with the storyId/assigneeId schema text (ticket key example repeats verbatim), but no wasted sentences.

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 non-destructive, idempotent mutation with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers invocation, both modes, the conflict/override path, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 already documents storyId formats, assigneeId null semantics, the bot-user exclusion, and the force/audit-log caveat. The description restates the same contract rather than adding format or constraint detail beyond it, 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 pair (assign/unassign) against a specific resource (story), gives the two accepted identifiers, and explicitly routes broader edits to stride.update_story. An agent can distinguish this from update_story and bulk_update_stories without opening a schema.

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?

Covers both directions of use (assigneeId to assign, null to clear), the prerequisite for the force path (human's explicit approval), and names the sibling to use for broader field edits. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present.

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