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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key mutation behavior: the provided list replaces the current assignment, and an empty person_ids with no crew unassigns the visit. It does not cover permissions, validation errors, or response behavior, but the core destructive semantics are stated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the replacement/unassignment semantics. There is no wasted text.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides enough information to call it correctly and understand the main side effect. Minor gaps remain around validation, permissions, and what happens when both person_ids and crew_id are supplied, but the essential behavior is covered.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the roles of person_ids and crew_id, that they can be combined, and the special empty person_ids case; visit_id is left implicit but is the obvious required target parameter.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: setting who is assigned to a visit, via person_ids, crew_id, or both. It clearly distinguishes this from generic visit updates, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against siblings such as visits_update.

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 explains the valid assignment modes and the empty-input behavior, which implies when to use this tool. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of visits_update or other visit-related tools, and no prerequisites are stated.

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