bulk_assign_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only the core mutation and omits critical bulk-operation semantics: partial-failure behavior if some cardIds are invalid, whether the assignment replaces existing members or adds to them, idempotency, and the return value. For a bulk write operation this is a substantial gap.

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 one compact sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the action verb. It covers the essential semantics efficiently, though the French language choice is slightly incongruous with the English tool names.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this definition is minimally adequate: an agent can infer the happy path but gets no guidance on failure semantics, prerequisites, replacement behavior, or return value. It also fails to explicitly route the agent toward add_member_to_card for single-card scenarios.

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%, but each parameter description is tautological ('Parameter cardIds', 'Parameter memberId (24 characters)'). The prose adds meaning by clarifying that memberId is the member to assign and cardIds are the target cards, but it provides no additional format or constraint details beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('Assigne'), a resource (a member), and a target (multiple cards), clearly conveying the bulk assignment operation. The 'à plusieurs cartes en une fois' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from add_member_to_card, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 given on when to prefer this tool over add_member_to_card (single-card assignment), remove_member_from_card, or other member-related siblings. Prerequisites such as the member being a board member or cards being valid are entirely absent, leaving usage context to be inferred from the tool name alone.

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