put_user_terminals_configs_assign

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the behavior for online vs. offline terminals (immediate vs. delayed sending) and error handling (no assignment on error). It also mentions required permissions. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds significant value.

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, starting with the core action and permission, then explaining behavior, error handling, and a note. It is front-loaded but includes some redundant HTML formatting. Every sentence adds information, but could be tightened slightly.

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 lack of output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, preconditions (permission), runtime behavior (online/offline), and error handling. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effect, though it omits details like idempotency or override behavior.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats that configId can be 'none' (already in schema) and adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 verb 'assign' and the resource 'user terminals configs'. It explicitly says 'User terminal config assignment' and specifies the action of assigning a config or none, which directly aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like put_routers_configs_assign.

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 mentions a required permission but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It provides implicit context (assign config to user terminals) but lacks guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with related tools like put_routers_configs_assign. The note about configIds being visible only on the website adds minor context but not a usage rule.

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