Add Additional Assignees To A Workflow Instance (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral information, such as the HTTP 201 return status and that the created object is returned. However, it does not disclose permissions needed, side effects, or rate limits, which are important for a mutation 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 moderately concise but includes extraneous information (e.g., listing required parameters redundantly, unclear mention of creating workflows). The key action is front-loaded, but the off-topic phrase hurts efficiency.

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 description lacks details about the return object's structure (beyond 'the created object'), error handling, or edge cases. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the response format. For a tool with 8 parameters and potential for failure, this is insufficient.

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 already provides full descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage). The description lists required parameters, which is redundant but helpful for quick reference. It also mentions the endpoint structure, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it adds additional assignees to a step occurrence on a company workflow instance. The verb ('Adds') and resource are specific. However, the phrase 'Use this to create a new Workflows' is confusing and somewhat contradicts the action, slightly reducing clarity.

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 (e.g., the sibling project-level tool). The description includes 'Use this to create a new Workflows', which is misleading (the tool adds assignees, not creates workflows). There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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