manage-assignments

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to state destructiveness. It adds valuable context about atomic rollback on failures, which is a behavioral trait not captured in annotations. It is consistent with annotations, and the mention of operation types (assign, unassign, reassign) reinforces the mutating nature.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the scope and operations, the second adds the atomic rollback detail. This is concise and well-structured.

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 description mentions atomic rollback and the operation types, it omits specifics like the conditional requirement of responsibleUser for assign/reassign or the availability of dryRun. However, the schema covers these details, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. For a tool with moderate complexity and full schema coverage, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 all parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only gives a high-level overview. The description mentions 'atomic rollback' but that's not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 for multiple tasks' and enumerates the specific operations (assign, unassign, reassign). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on assignment operations and bulk scope, effectively covering verb+resource+scope.

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 for bulk assignment tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The term 'bulk' suggests multiple tasks, but no direct comparison to individual assignment tools is given.

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