add_assignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the function (creates a recursive group and planning list), the structure of inputs, and the return type (JSON string with IDs). However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it invalidates caches, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits). The description is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 longer than necessary, but it is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, labeled parameter details, and a return description. The front-loaded purpose sentence is effective. However, the inclusion of full example JSON structures, while valuable, adds verbosity. It could be slightly more concise without losing critical information.

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 complexity of the tool (creating assignments with recurrence), the description is fully complete: it explains the concept of recursive groups and planning lists, details all input parameters with field-level documentation, and describes the return value. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description of the return as a JSON string with created IDs. No gaps remain.

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 provides only titles with no descriptions (0% schema description coverage). The tool description compensates fully by detailing the structure and required fields of 'planning_list' and 'recursive_group' with example JSON snippets and field-level explanations. For 'id_activity', it simply restates the schema, but overall the description adds essential meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Assign time slots to an activity by creating a new recursive group.' It uses specific verbs and resources, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_assignment' or clarify the distinction between similar assignment-related tools. Hence, while purpose is clear, sibling differentiation is missing.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_assignment', 'modify_assignment', or 'update_assignment'. It implies usage for creating recurring assignments, but does not state prerequisites, context, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent uncertain about selection.

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