manage-assignments

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent and open-world, but the description adds meaningfully beyond them: assigning sends a notification to the new assignee, and each task is updated independently so failures are partial and reported per task. Those side-effect and partial-failure semantics are exactly the kind of context an agent needs before firing a destructive batch call.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the operation/scope front-loaded and the risk mitigations (per-task failure isolation, dryRun) trailing in priority order. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 destructive batch mutation with five parameters, the description covers batch limits, partial-failure behavior, notification side effects, and the dryRun escape hatch, and an output schema exists to explain per-task results. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% — every parameter, including the operation enum, responsibleUser's "me"/ID/name/email forms, and fromAssigneeUser's optionality, is documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the 50-item cap and mentions dryRun, so it adds essentially nothing new; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb triple (assign/unassign/reassign) plus the resource (tasks) and the batch scope (up to 50 at once), which lets an agent distinguish this from single-object tools like update-tasks or complete-tasks. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-routed.

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?

"Use dryRun to check the changes first" is a concrete usage recommendation, and the 50-task cap sets a practical boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (looping update-tasks), leaving the choice largely implied.

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