vikunja_task_assignees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies mutation for assign/unassign but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwrite vs. additive assignment), permission requirements, or idempotency. The 'list assignees' operation is read-only, but the description lumps it with mutations without clarifying behavioral differences.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but sacrifices completeness. It front-loads the purpose but lacks detail on behavior and parameters. It could be restructured to include parameter hints without significantly increasing length.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description needs to explain return values or results. It does not mention what the tool returns for each operation, error conditions (e.g., invalid task ID), or required pre-existing state (e.g., an authenticated session). For a tool with 3 parameters and explicit operations, the description is incomplete.

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%, and the description only loosely maps to parameters: 'assign users, unassign users, list assignees' corresponds to the 'operation' enum but does not explain the 'id' (task ID?) or 'assignees' (user IDs?) parameters. This leaves ambiguity about parameter semantics.

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 'Manage task assignments: assign users, unassign users, list assignees' clearly specifies the resource (task assignees) and the three distinct operations. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vikunja_task_crud, the tool name and operations provide sufficient clarity.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vikunja_task_crud). It does not state prerequisites, such as needing an existing task, or exclude scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.

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