update_assignment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It states 'Replaces the group definition and all its slots', indicating a destructive update, and mentions the return format. However, it omits details on permissions, reversibility, error states, or side effects, leaving significant gaps 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 relatively long but well-structured with a clear introduction and bulleted args. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'same format as add_assignment'), and the size could be reduced without losing essential 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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers the return value. It includes a prerequisite (get_activity) and references sibling formats. However, it does not address failure modes, rollback, or concurrency issues, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It lists all four arguments with brief explanations (e.g., 'id_activity: Activity ID', 'planning_list: JSON string — full slot list'). It adds context by referencing identical formats in 'add_assignment'. However, it lacks detailed format specifications or validation rules, which limits its utility.

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 'Update an existing assignment group and its time slots', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from 'add_assignment' by noting the use of existing IDs, but does not fully differentiate from 'modify_assignment' or 'delete_assignment'.

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 advises 'Use get_activity first to find the group ID' and explains that the JSON formats are identical to 'add_assignment'. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like 'modify_assignment' or 'delete_assignment', nor does it outline when not to use this tool.

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