assign_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool 'creates a delegation automatically,' which is a meaningful side effect. However, it does not mention any required permissions, potential overwrites, reversibility, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is not enough transparency.

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 two concise sentences totaling 15 words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and adds the key side effect without any fluff. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core action but fails to mention the return value or clarify the role of sensitive parameters like agent_public_key and spend_limit. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the overall purpose. The parameters like spend_limit and agent_public_key are not explained further in the description, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions for each.

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: 'Assign an agent to a role in a task' and adds the key side effect 'Creates a delegation automatically.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates the tool from generic delegation tools like create_delegation by focusing on role assignment within a task. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or scope boundaries, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to be assigned a role in a task and a delegation should be created. It does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as create_delegation, sub_delegate, or create_v2_delegation. The usage context is inferable but not explicitly stated.

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