redmine_assign_issue_to_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a thin wrapper over `redmine_update_issue` and honors a read-only flag. It does not describe any side effects, permissions required, or the return value (though output schema exists). The disclosure is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 very concise, using a structured format with Args section. Every sentence adds value: defining the action, explaining parameters, noting the wrapper relationship, and mentioning the read-only flag. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential behavior: assignment, clearing, wrapper context, and read-only respect. It could additionally mention error conditions or expected output, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies both parameters: `issue_id` is numeric, `version_id` is numeric and passing 0 clears the version. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type/title. It does not explain where to find `issue_id` or `version_id`, but the context is sufficient.

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 clearly states the action: 'Assign (or clear) an issue's target version.' It specifies the resource (issue) and the field (target version). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `redmine_update_issue` by noting it's a thin wrapper that specifically sets `fixed_version_id`.

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 explains when to pass `version_id` as 0 to clear the version, and notes that it honors `REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY`, indicating a read-only mode. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used over the more general `redmine_update_issue` or when not to use it.

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