Create Coordination Issue Assignment

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) but not destructive. The description adds context by noting it 'executes a series of actions' including updating assignee_id and creating an activity, and returns HTTP 201. However, the description's inconsistency (claiming it creates a new issue) undermines transparency. Overall, it provides moderate behavioral insight beyond annotations.

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 contains redundancy and errors. It repeats 'Creates a new Coordination Issues' twice, which is both repetitive and incorrect. The structure lists required parameters but lacks clarity. It is not well-organized and includes unnecessary information (e.g., HTTP status code) without prioritization. Conciseness is compromised by errors.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value and structure of the assignment object, but it only vaguely says 'returns the created object'. It fails to describe the coordination_issue_assignment object's expected properties. The misleading statement about creating an issue further reduces completeness. For a tool with side effects and a complex input object, the description 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description lists required parameters by name and notes coordination_issue_assignment is a JSON object. However, it does not explain the structure of this nested object, which has 'additionalProperties': true in the schema, leaving ambiguity. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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: creating a Coordination Issue Assignment, and explains the side effects (updates assignee_id and creates activity). However, there is a confusing and potentially misleading phrase 'Use this to create a new Coordination Issues in Procore' which conflates the assignment with the issue itself. Despite this, the core purpose is discernible and distinct from sibling tools like create_coordination_issue.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It incorrectly suggests it creates a new coordination issue, which is misleading. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling differentiation. The statement 'Use this to create a new Coordination Issues in Procore' is inaccurate and could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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