assign_always_on

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the post-assignment effects (24/7 running, lifted deploy limit) and the requirement that the subscription be unassigned. It could also mention reversibility or failure behavior, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and effect, then adds the critical usage guardrail and input source. Every clause earns its place.

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-parameter tool with fully documented schema properties, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly: the action, the effect, the prerequisite, and the source of valid inputs. It does not describe response shape or edge cases, but those are minor gaps for this simple operation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both subscription_id and container. The description reinforces that unassigned subscriptions come from check_quota, but it does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Attach an UNASSIGNED Always-On subscription to a container.' It also states the functional effects (keeps it running 24/7 and lifts the deploy limit), which clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like stop_container, deploy, or check_quota.

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'Only call this after the user explicitly confirms.' It also points to the exact sibling tool, check_quota, for discovering unassigned subscriptions, so an agent knows how to gather the required input before calling.

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