assign_account

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits: passing None clears the group, and groups are non-exclusive ('Many accounts may share a group'). It does not say whether re-assigning overwrites a prior group, whether the group must already exist, or anything about permissions or the response.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the null-clearing caveat and the shared-group note. Every clause adds distinct 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the clearing behavior, and the sharing model. Remaining gaps - overwrite semantics on re-assignment and the account identifier format - are minor but real.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: 'group' gets example values ('work', 'personal') and the critical null semantics. The required 'account' parameter is only implicit from the verb and its accepted format (ID vs. address) is never specified.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Assign an account') plus the target concept ('to a group'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like add_account, remove_account and list_accounts. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the parenthetical '(None clears it)' tells the agent how to un-assign a group, which is a useful when-to-do-what hint. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over remove_account or add_account, and no prerequisite or error-condition guidance.

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