Gives work to an owner, person waited on, or party asked to act, and processes claims with a resource holder, reason, and optional duration.
Give work to someone, inside the map or outside it: an owner, a person waited on, a party asked to act. Call with the action and its params. Its actions: claim (resource, holder, for?, reason). query actions says what each does.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | No | Who you are, for the log. | |
| action | No | ||
| params | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false; there is no readOnlyHint. The description does not disclose whether assignment mutates state, what side effects 'claim' has, or what permissions are needed, so behavior beyond the annotations remains opaque.
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 short sentences are front-loaded with the core idea, but phrases like 'inside the map or outside it' and 'a person waited on' are cryptic and do not earn their place. The action-specific detail is useful but only partially delivered.
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?
This is a polymorphic dispatcher with nested params, no output schema, and no readOnlyHint. The description names only one action and defers the rest to 'query actions', leaving the full action list, side effects, and return behavior insufficiently 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 coverage is low (33%), so the description must compensate. It does partially by naming one action's expected params ('claim (resource, holder, for?, reason)'), but it leaves the 'action' parameter values and most nested params unexplained, relying on a separate 'query actions' call.
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 gives a recognizable verb and resource ('Give work to someone') and hints at assignable roles (owner, person waited on, party asked to act). However, the scope is abstract ('inside the map or outside it') and it does not clearly distinguish assign from siblings like change, settle, or revise.
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 says to 'Call with the action and its params' and points to 'query actions' for details, which is a partial usage hint. But it never says when to use assign versus the many sibling tools, nor does it set prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.