Resolve Assignees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the behavioral detail that ambiguous matches are exposed, which is a meaningful disclosure about how the tool handles multiple possible matches.

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 that is front-loaded with the action verb and avoids redundant phrasing. It conveys the core purpose without waste.

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 minimal schema and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: how ambiguous matches are represented in the response, what constitutes a valid assignee, and the role of workspace_id. Given the tool's 2-parameter complexity and good annotations, more detail would improve completeness, but the core purpose is covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain the format or semantics of the 'assignees' parameter beyond 'proposed assignees', nor does it mention the optional 'workspace_id' parameter at all. The array items are not described whether they are names, emails, or something else.

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 the specific verb 'resolve' with resource 'proposed assignees' to member IDs, which clearly defines the operation. It also mentions exposing ambiguous matches, distinguishing it from simple member lookup tools like find_member_by_name.

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 usage when there are multiple proposed assignees needing conversion to member IDs, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as find_member_by_name or get_workspace_members. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned.

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