nayori_client_assign_provider

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

Adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: mainnet-only, refusal conditions, result field (hadActiveApplication), no fund movement, and txid not confirmation. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of side effects and response semantics.

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 front-loaded with the core action and each sentence adds necessary operational detail. No superfluous 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 a simple write tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, side effects, and return behavior. It is complete enough for correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that jobId identifies the job and provider is the assignee. The asset enum (sbtc/stx) is self-explanatory, so the added context is sufficient.

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?

Clearly states the tool writes to mainnet and assigns a provider to a job as a client, referencing the escrow assign-provider operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like client_create_job or apply_to_job.

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 explicit refusal preconditions (signer is client, status funded, no provider assigned, provider not disqualified), which effectively tells when the tool will succeed. It doesn't name alternative tools for other scenarios, so not a 5.

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