assign_incident

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior traits. It mentions the input structure and example but does not state required permissions, idempotency, reversibility, or side effects. This is a mutation tool, and the description lacks such transparency.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds useful information (input fields, resolution hint, example). It is somewhat repetitive in mentioning GraphQL syntax, but overall all content is earn-worthy.

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 low complexity of an assignment operation, the description gives enough to invoke the tool correctly: input shape, how to resolve assigneeId, and an example. It does not mention return values or permissions, but for a simple mutation with no output schema this is a reasonable completeness level.

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 schema only shows an opaque 'input' property and a customer_slug override, but the description explicitly names the inner fields 'incidentId' and 'assigneeId', and provides an example. This adds valuable meaning beyond the schema's placeholder, compensating for the opaque GraphQL type.

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 'Assign an incident to a GreyMatter user,' identifying the specific verb (assign) and resource (incident). It distinguishes from sibling tools like assign_task or assign_drp_alert by focusing on incidents.

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 actionable guidance: 'Resolve assigneeId via the customer/users query,' and includes an example with variable names. It implies the tool is for assigning incidents but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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