assign_to_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the prose carries the full burden. The description openly states 'Mutating', 'mechanical / non-AI-gated', and 'validate only that every referenced component exists', and it explains the side effect of scoping controls/visible to coding agents. It could have also disclosed irreversibility or permissions, but the behavioral boundaries are reasonably clear and go beyond minimal.

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?

Although the description is longer than a simple phrase, it is tightly structured with a single high-level opening, two alternating bullets for target_type, and a short shared tag about the behavior. Each sentence contributes operational knowledge: what happens to scalars, how repo visibility works, when to use multi-assignment, and what validation applies. There is no repetition of heavy struct/schema content.

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 multiple parameters and two semantically different modes with no annotations, the description is almost complete: it covers both target types, the meaning of component scoping, the side effects of empty `component_ids`, the validation guarantee, and important domain specifics. The only notable gap is `server_version` is not described and there is no explicit statement about the required `change_reason` semantic format, but the output schema and rich parameter schema fill in many remainder.

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?

The schema already covers 83% of the parameters, and the description adds real semantic value on top: it explains what `target_type` chooses, what each `target_id` form should look like (with examples like 'CTRL-03' and 'A1'), and what `component_ids` means semantically. The `server_version` parameter is not described, but the schema burden is otherwise largely filled, so some additional value over the schema is present.

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 opening sentence states exactly what the tool does: 'Replace an asset's or a control's component scope.' The description then separates the two variants (`target_type = control` vs `target_type = asset`) with concrete use cases and examples, which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like `remap_control`, `edit_asset`, or `add_component`.

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 gives practical 'when to use' guidance: for controls it explicitly says 'Use when wiring a previously unscoped control... adding a second component... or correcting a wrong assignment'; for assets it explains the value of linking assets to components and gives the multi-instance asset example. It does not explicitly say 'do not use this if you need to modify component definitions or other entity attributes', so it stops just short of full exclusionary guidance.

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