assign_discover_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only labels the operation as a mutation, implying a write, but does not describe what changes are made, required permissions, side effects, or reversibility. This leaves the agent guessing about the impact of calling the 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 very short, essentially one line with an example. It is concise, but the phrasing is cryptic and lacks clear sentence structure. It front-loads 'Discover Tasks' rather than a clear action verb, making it less easily parseable. The example adds some value but the overall structure is minimal.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the full structure of the input object, the effects of the mutation, prerequisites, or the response format. The example is the only useful part, but it is insufficient for safe invocation and does not cover required inputs comprehensively.

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's description for 'input' is merely 'GraphQL: AssignDiscoverTaskInput!', which provides no field details. The description's example variables show that input contains assignee and discoverTaskId, adding some semantic meaning. However, it does not explain types, other required fields, or the customer_slug parameter, which has a clear schema description but is absent from the description.

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 states 'mutation assignDiscoverTask' and mentions 'Discover Tasks', but does not explicitly say 'assign a Discover Task to an assignee'. The example variables hint at the operation, but the description lacks a clear verb+resource statement. It is somewhat vague but distinguishable from sibling tools by name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assign_task, close_discover_task, or update_discover_task_state. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative references are provided. The example simply shows variable names without explaining appropriate use cases.

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