assign_agent_group

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Write: reroutes the conversation,' which clearly indicates a mutating operation and its primary effect. However, it does not detail side effects such as whether the existing assignment is replaced, what happens to the assigned human agent, or any permission requirements. Basic disclosure is present, but depth is limited.

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 a single sentence followed by a concise provenance note. It is front-loaded with the action, uses backticks for parameter sources, and contains no fluff. Every element earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to obtain the parameters, and the effect (reroutes the conversation). It does not mention error conditions or return values, but for such a focused operation, the provided details are reasonably complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by explaining that user_ns comes from find_contact and agent_group_id from list_agent_groups. This gives clear provenance and usage guidance for both parameters, which is far more valuable than the raw schema alone. It does not describe formats or constraints, but the sourcing hints are highly actionable.

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 states a specific action: 'Assign a contact's chat to an agent group.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assign_agent (which assigns to a single agent) and move_chat (which moves conversations). The verb 'assign' and resource 'agent group' are unambiguous and the scope is well-defined.

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 provides provenance for both parameters ('user_ns from find_contact; agent_group_id from list_agent_groups'), which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the alternative assign_agent, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions beyond the rerouting effect. The 'Write: reroutes the conversation' hint conveys the effect but not the decision criteria.

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