scf_batch_create_team_assignments

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it is explicitly a write operation, requires an admin role, executes in one transaction, and produces one aggregate notification. It does not elaborate on side effects like overwriting existing assignments, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the core action and limits are front-loaded, followed by a memorable one-line purpose tag. Every clause carries information.

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 batch write tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational constraints: max batch size, item types, transaction semantics, notification behavior, and role requirement. It could be more complete by mentioning whether prior assignments are replaced, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents org_id, team_id, type, item_ids, and is_accountable. The description reinforces that item_ids target controls or evidence and caps at 500, but it does not add deeper meaning such as the default false behavior of is_accountable or interaction with existing assignments.

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 names a specific verb ('Assign'), a precise resource ('one team to up to 500 controls or evidence items'), and a clear transactional scope. It also adds the tagline 'bulk accountability tool' that distinguishes it from the single-item sibling scf_create_team_assignment and the read-only scf_list_team_assignments.

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 description communicates clear usage context: this is the batch variant, capped at 500 items, for assigning one team across controls or evidence. It does not explicitly name scf_create_team_assignment as the alternative for single assignments, nor state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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