github_orgs_assign_team_to_org_role

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'assign', which implies a mutation, but fails to mention required permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing assignments), reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant omission.

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 consists of a single sentence with no redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and resources. However, it may be too brief for an agent to fully understand without additional context.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what an organization role is, how team_slug relates to the team, or what role_id refers to (e.g., from org roles list). An agent lacks context to use the tool accurately without external knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'org', 'team_slug', 'role_id'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning, such as how to obtain these values or format constraints. The schema does the minimal job, so a baseline score of 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 'Assign an organization role to a team' clearly indicates the action (assign) and the resources (organization role and team). The tool name itself specifies 'team' vs 'user', but the description does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'github_orgs_assign_user_to_org_role'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., assigning a user to a role, revoking roles). There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The description is purely operational without usage direction.

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