listAssignMembers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does not disclose read-only behavior, side effects, authentication needs, or any constraints beyond the parameter. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.

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 very short (one sentence), but it is not optimally concise because the wording is unclear. Every word should earn its place, but 'assign members' is confusing and could be replaced with clearer phrasing.

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 the tool has one required parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the output looks like or what 'assign members' means. The current description is too minimal to be complete; it lacks context on return format or any constraints.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. The schema already explains 'type' as a business type with examples. No additional parameter context is provided, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List assign members for a business type' conveys a read operation filtered by type, but the phrasing 'assign members' is grammatically awkward and unclear. It likely means 'assigned members' but is ambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling listMembers by implying a filter, but lacks precision.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listMembers or other list* tools. The context of 'business type' is provided in the parameter description, but the tool description itself does not specify usage context or alternatives.

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