manage-assignments

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds value by disclosing atomic rollback on failures, which is a key behavioral trait not captured in annotations. It does not mention other traits like permission requirements or response format.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Bulk assignment operations') and adds critical detail (operations supported, atomic rollback) efficiently.

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?

While the output schema exists, the description does not mention important constraints (e.g., max 50 tasks, required responsibleUser for assign/reassign) that are not immediately obvious from the schema. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a complex tool with multiple operation types.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions the operation types but does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: bulk assignment operations (assign, unassign, reassign) for multiple tasks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on other task operations (e.g., add-tasks, update-tasks) by specifying 'assignment operations' and 'atomic rollback'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update-tasks for single assignments). It lacks explicit context for usage, such as prerequisites 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.