weeek_set_assignees

Does 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. 'Add assignees' implies a mutation, but the description does not state whether this appends to existing assignees or replaces them, whether it requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, or what the response looks like.

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 a single concise sentence with zero waste. However, it may be slightly under-specified rather than optimally concise, though the brevity is acceptable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin. It lacks behavioral detail (append vs. replace semantics), permission requirements, return value expectations, and any error conditions. The reference to weeek_list_members is useful but insufficient for full completeness.

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 only mentions that member ids come from weeek_list_members. The description does hint that assignees values are member ids (which maps to the array of strings param), but does not elaborate on the task_id format or any constraints on the assignees array.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('assignees to a task'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also references 'weeek_list_members' as the source of member ids, which differentiates it from the sibling 'weeek_remove_assignees'.

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 implies usage context by referencing 'weeek_list_members' as the source of member ids, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like weeek_remove_assignees or weeek_set_watchers. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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