assign_group_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('Assign'), suggesting mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether transactions are modified in-place), rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely alters data.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No structural issues are present.

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 likely performs a mutation (assigning IDs) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what a 'group ID' is, how it's used, what the return value looks like, or any error conditions. For a 3-parameter tool with potential side effects, this leaves critical gaps.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'transactions' are assigned a group ID, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Assign') and target resource ('group ID to a list of transactions'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_indexer_search_for_transactions' or 'decode_signed_transaction' that also handle transactions, leaving some ambiguity about its specific role in the broader toolset.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing transaction objects in a specific format), context (e.g., grouping for batch processing), or exclusions (e.g., not for single transactions). This leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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