scf_create_assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'write' is consistent but adds little new information. The 'editor role' provides a permission nuance not in the annotationshola, but there is no disclosure of idempotency, duplicate-handling, or post-creation effects. With annotations covering the primary safety profile, this is a minimal but acceptable addition.

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 sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded, the parameters are implied, and the alternative tool is mentioned at the end as a pointer. Every word contributes to selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 flat create operation with no output schema)Skip, the description is sufficient for correct invocation: it names the resources, roles, and the relevant bulk alternative. It could mention reversibility via scf_delete_assignment or behavior on duplicate assignments, but those are not necessary for correct selection or invocation.

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%: each parameter (assignable_type, assignable_id, user_id, role) has a detailed description including UUID format and source (scf_list_members). The tool description merely mirrors the enum values (control, evidence, task; primary, collaborator) without adding new parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('Assign') and resource ('a user to a control, evidence item or task'), lists the allowed roles (primary or collaborator), and includes a permission note ('write — editor role'). It clearly differentiates from the bulk update sibling by naming it directly, so an agent can identify what this tool does at a glance.

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?

It explicitly points to scf_batch_update_evidence for bulk evidence owner updates, which is an exclusion condition for this tool. It also conveys the role options that affect behavior. While it doesn't mention team assignments, the schema's user_id parameter implicitly limits to individual users, and the explicit alternative satisfies the requirement.

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