write_assign

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

Even though destructiveHint is already true, the description adds precise behavioral detail: it 'adds to existing assignments', only removes others when 'exclusive: true' is explicitly passed, and it reports removed assignments plus reads assignments back. This is exactly the kind of safety-relevant nuance an agent needs before invoking a destructive write.

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 pack the core purpose, supported value forms, default behavior, exclusive exception, and return behavior with no filler. The key 'adds to existing assignments' clarification is 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?

With no output schema and only sparse parameter descriptions, the description compensates well by stating the write effect, exclusivity behavior, and what is reported. It falls just short of full completeness because the required `id` parameter is never explicitly defined as the card identifier.

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 description clarifies the semantics of user, role, and exclusive beyond the schema examples, but it never explains what the required `id` parameter refers to (presumably the card id). Since schema_description_coverage is only 50% and `id` has no schema description, this is a real gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assign a person to a card in a role', which clearly distinguishes it from read operations and from write_unassign. It also specifies accepted user forms ('names or ids; "me"') and the additive/exclusive behavior, so an agent understands the tool's operation at a glance.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (assigning people to roles on a card) and explains the default additive behavior versus exclusive mode. It does not explicitly name write_unassign as the sibling for removing assignments, so some routing guidance is left implicit.

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