assign_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Write: reroutes the conversation', indicating it's a mutating operation with a clear side effect. However, it does not describe reversibility, permissions, interactions with the bot (e.g., pausing), or potential failure conditions. It goes beyond a tautology but remains minimal.

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 extremely concise—three short sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide essential sourcing and effect information. No filler or redundancy; every phrase 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core inputs and the primary effect. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., already-assigned contacts, bot state) or prerequisites besides sourcing parameters, but these are likely covered by sibling context and the simplicity of the operation. It's slightly lean but adequate for an agent to make an informed call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that `user_ns` comes from `find_contact` and `agent_id` from `list_agents`, which provides provenance and likely type context. While it doesn't fully redefine each parameter, the mapping to source tools adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare type definitions.

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 ('assign') and clearly states the resource ('a contact's chat') and recipient ('human agent'). This distinguishes it from siblings like assign_agent_group (assign to a group) and unassign_agent (remove assignment). The phrase 'Write: reroutes the conversation' further clarifies the action's effect.

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 explicit guidance on sourcing parameters: `user_ns` from `find_contact` and `agent_id` from `list_agents`. This tells the agent exactly how to obtain inputs. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like `assign_agent_group` or mention when not to use this tool. The condition 'to a human agent' implies a distinction but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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