assign_intervention

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

Annotations already convey non-idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a valuable behavioral constraint: authorization is required and pilot access must be arranged. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could say more about side effects of creating an assignment.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, and the second communicates the operational prerequisite and contact path. There is no redundant repetition of schema details.

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 full parameter schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the mechanics of invocation and the authorization barrier. However, it leaves selection context unaddressed—when to assign versus close an intervention—and offers limited detail on the assignment's effect, making it adequate but not complete.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions and examples, including operator_id and intervention_type. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score applies.

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 the verb (assign), resource (targeted intervention), and recipient (operator), making the core operation clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling close_intervention by the opposing action, though it does not explicitly call out that contrast.

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 no when-to-use guidance or alternative routing, and it does not mention relationships to siblings like close_intervention or create_experiment. The only usage-related information is the authorization prerequisite, which is not sufficient for tool selection.

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