hcm_update_worker_assignment

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds that the operation is subject to approval unless --write is used. This is useful extra context, but it is ambiguous: it does not explain what the approval workflow entails, what --write means, or what side effects may occur.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core verb and resource front-loaded. The parenthetical is compact, though it introduces ambiguity, so it earns slightly less than a perfect score.

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 mutation tool with two required parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, approval workflow details, body structure, and expected return behavior, making it insufficient for correct invocation without additional tool discovery.

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 0%, and the description does not explain assignmentId or the body object. The agent is left with no information about what fields the body should contain or how assignmentId is used, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action ('PATCH') and the resource ('a worker assignment'), so an agent understands what operation this tool performs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with hcm_create_worker_assignment or hcm_update_worker, but the resource noun is specific enough to avoid gross confusion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hcm_create_worker_assignment or hcm_update_worker. The parenthetical about approval is process-oriented, not usage-oriented, and fails to state prerequisites or exclusions.

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