assign_task

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and permissions. It only states the operation and input fields, but does not mention whether the assignment overwrites existing assignees, requires specific permissions, or what mutations occur. The inclusion of query-like variables (after, filter, first, order) without explanation adds confusion rather than 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 short but poorly structured. It mixes prose with code-like variable declarations and a long JSON example without clear separation. While it is not overly verbose, the structure is confusing and could lead to misinterpretation of required vs optional inputs.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description should explain return values, side effects, or error behavior. It provides none of these. The example variables help with input format, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool and understand consequences.

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 100% but each parameter description is minimal (e.g., 'GraphQL: String'). The description adds value by explicitly listing the input fields (taskId, assigneeId) in AssignTaskInput and providing an example. However, the roles of after, filter, first, and order are not clarified for a mutation context, leaving their purpose ambiguous.

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 action ('Assign a task to a GreyMatter user') with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'unassign_drp_alert' or 'resolve_task' by the explicit mention of GreyMatter user and task. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other assign tools (e.g., assign_drp_alert, assign_incident), making it slightly less precise.

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 vs. alternatives. The description only provides the action and variable structure, but no context about prerequisites, suitability, or exclusion of other assignment tools. It does not say 'use this when you need to change task assignee' or list alternatives.

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