Runn: create assignment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral note that the response may contain multiple segments if the period overlaps leave, which is beyond what the schema shows. However, it does not disclose other side effects, permissions, or failure modes, so it is only partially transparent.

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: first states the action and endpoint, second lists required fields and a key behavioral note. It is front-loaded, efficient, and 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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, this description is incomplete. It mentions segment multiplicity in the response but does not explain the broader response structure, optional parameters, or how dates and minutesPerDay interact. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.

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 9%, so the description must compensate. It merely repeats the required parameter names from the JSON schema without explaining their meaning, types, or formats. The only schema description (for isBillable) is not echoed in the text. Thus minimal value is added beyond the structured fields.

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 opens with 'Create an assignment (POST /assignments)', explicitly stating the verb and resource. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like runn_create_phase or runn_create_project, which target different entities.

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 implied usage is clear: use when creating an assignment. It lists the six required fields, giving actionable guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., use runn_update_assignment for modifications) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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