Assign Task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: assigning replaces the current owner because a task has exactly one assignee ('one neck to grab'). It also explains how to unassign using an empty string. This goes beyond basic purpose to explain side effects. Lacks info on authorization (who can assign), but that's common and acceptable.

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 two sentences long, each earning its place. First sentence delivers the core action and options; second explains the design rationale and alternative usage. No fluff, perfectly front-loaded.

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 simple 2-parameter schema and absence of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to specify assignees, and the behavioral consequence (replacement). It could optionally mention the return value (e.g., confirmation or updated task), but that is not required with no output schema, and the context signals indicate simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds significant value by explaining the FOUNDERS_OS_USER_ID format, acceptable AI agent references ('@claude', '@gpt'), and the empty string for unassignment. It also reinforces the replace behavior, which is not fully captured in the schema alone.

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 explicitly states the action 'Assign or reassign a task' to a specific resource (task). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_task by focusing solely on the assignee field, and it clarifies the one-assignee design, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to assign, reassign, or unassign a task. It also offers alternatives by suggesting others involved should be mentioned via @person tags or in the description, effectively guiding the agent away from misuse. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for changing task fields other than assignee), which would have sealed a 5.

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