scf_create_team_assignment

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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by explicitly labeling the tool as 'write — admin role'. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing a specific side effect: is_accountable makes the team accountable and demotes any incumbent to consulted. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that adds value.

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 no wasted words: the first front-loads the action, scope, and role, and the second covers the key behavioral nuance. Every clause earns its place, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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 five parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the administrative requirement, and the most important side effect. It could mention the response shape or what happens when is_accountable is false, but the absence of an output schema lowers that burden. Overall it is adequate for confident tool 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value for is_accountable by explaining the demotion of an incumbent team, which is not stated in the schema property. It also clarifies the item scope (control or evidence), reinforcing the type enum without repeating it verbatim.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Assign a team to one scoped control or evidence item', which clearly states what the tool does. The scope 'one' implicitly differentiates it from scf_batch_create_team_assignments, and the '(write — admin role)' qualifier adds context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides a clear operational context: it is a write operation requiring an admin role, and it is for assigning to a single scoped control or evidence item. However, it does not state when to prefer this over scf_batch_create_team_assignments or how it relates to scf_delete_team_assignment, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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