clokio_set_task_assignees

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: 'add' appends, 'replace' overwrites, 'remove' removes, and assignees are employee codes. This clarifies the exact mutating behavior and the format of the values, which the annotations alone do not provide.

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. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by compact mode semantics and an example format for employee codes. Every sentence 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 simple setter with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, mode differences, and value format. It does not discuss error handling or authorization, but those are not critical for this tool's straightforward usage, and the schema covers required parameters and the mode default.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of 'mode' and the format of 'employee_codes', but it does not directly describe the 'id' parameter beyond the implicit 'a task's assignees' context. The mode semantics mirror the enum values, adding some clarification but not full parameter documentation.

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: 'Set a task's assignees,' combined with mode semantics (add/replace/remove) that clearly convey the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like clokio_update_task, but the purpose is unambiguous from the wording.

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 implies when to use the tool—whenever a task's assignees need to be modified—and explains the three modes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the mode definitions provide enough contextual guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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