Assign a task to a bound identity by providing the task ID, assignee ID, and actor role.
Assign a task to a bound identity with a declared actor role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | ||
| actorRole | Yes | ||
| assigneeId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Assign a task' implies a mutation, but the description does not state permission requirements, whether assignment is reversible, how it interacts with bound identities, or what happens on failure. No annotations means the description must compensate more than it does.
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?
A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No wasted words, though the compactness trades away the detail the tool needs.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain actorRole (the least self-evident parameter), doesn't cover permissions or side effects, and doesn't provide any output or error context. Significant gaps remain.
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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. taskId and assigneeId are self-evident from their names, but actorRole is abstract and completely unexplained — the description repeats 'declared actor role' without defining what an actor role is or its valid values. Three required parameters with no documentation in either place.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (assign a task) with additional scope (bound identity, declared actor role). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like workflow_claim_task, workflow_complete_task, or workflow_report_blocker, leaving the agent to infer when assignment differs from claiming. Vague enough to be considered minimum viable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains workflow_claim_task, which is a closely related concept (taking a task), but the description gives no condition that selects assignment over claiming. Context is implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.