assign_agent

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions that a delegation is created automatically, but lacks details on mutability, permission requirements, reversibility, rate limits, or other side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence that front-loads the action with '[OPERATOR]'. It is direct and without unnecessary words, though the prefix is somewhat unorthodox. Overall, it is concise.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, many sibling delegation tools), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how assignment relates to other delegation operations. An agent would lack sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the input schema provides descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context that delegation is created (hinting at 'scope' and 'spend_limit' usage), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 notes it creates a delegation. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_delegation' or 'endorse_agent', though the context of role and task helps.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or references to sibling tools like 'create_delegation' for more granular delegation control.

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