assign_work_item

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description still adds real behavior the annotations do not: login resolution, skipping an already-assigned user, post-assignment verification, and actor-aware audit metadata in the response.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and permissions before the behavioral sequence. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; 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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the return shape (actor-aware audit metadata), the auth requirement, the mutation semantics, and the skip-and-verify sequence. The remaining gap is parameter meaning, which is left entirely to an undocumented schema.

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% across all four required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'Resolves the login' loosely maps to assigneeLogin, and 'authorized Project item' loosely hints at itemId; owner and number are never explained.

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 names a specific verb (Assign) and resource (a GitHub user to the Issue/PR behind a Project item), which is materially distinct from siblings like update_github_project_item_status or update_github_project_item_field. An agent can route here without opening the 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?

'Admin/PM only in the current policy' gives an explicit authorization gate for when this tool is usable. It stops short of naming which alternative to use when the user is not authorized or when the item is not yet a project item, so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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