weeek_add_assignees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses additive semantics (existing assignees preserved) and that the task is returned, but omits permission/auth requirements, duplicate handling, and behavior on an unknown member name or id.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. Every clause (multi-member, name-or-id, additive, returns task) earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and return value but leaves error/permission behavior and input validation details unspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema contributes no parameter descriptions. The description adds real value by stating assignees accept 'name or id' and that the target is a task, but it does not clarify that the bare 'id' parameter is the task id nor mention the minItems/maxItems bounds.

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?

States a specific verb (assign), the resource (workspace members), the target (a WEEEK task), and the additive scope ('keeping the existing assignees'). This clearly separates it from the sibling weeek_remove_assignees and from any replace-style operation.

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 phrase 'keeping the existing assignees' implies when this tool is appropriate versus a replacement operation, and the sibling weeek_remove_assignees is the obvious inverse. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative.

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