assign_load_types

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the resolution precedence (mapping > grid metadata > distribution > default_category) and the return shape (assignment_id plus per-category summary), but says nothing about permissions, whether assignments overwrite existing data, or reversibility for what is clearly a mutation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and category vocabulary, with the precedence rule second. No filler, though the parenthetical category list is somewhat long.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, precedence, and return value, but does not give enough guidance on the many optional knobs (strategy, basis, distribution, include_loads) to be fully self-sufficient.

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 69%, so the schema already documents most parameters individually. The description adds relational value by tying mapping, grid metadata, distribution and default_category together via the precedence chain, but leaves several params (seed, strategy, basis, profile_generation, include_loads) unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Assign') and resource ('category ... and profile to every load'), and enumerates the concrete category values an agent can expect. It is clearly distinct from profile-generation siblings like generate_profiles, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for assigning load categories before downstream profile work. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many siblings (generate_profiles, get_grid_loads, etc.).

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