tasks_assign

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

The description discloses that the response includes a dashboard URL and instructs the agent to show it to the user, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, consistent with the description.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence defines the action and target, the second provides a critical output instruction. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and highlights the dashboard URL response. Given no output schema, it provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's effect and output. Could mention potential errors but overall sufficient for a simple assignment operation.

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 description adds value by explaining that 'identifier' can be a UUID, short_id, or title, and that 'assignee_email' is the collaborator's email. This elaborates on the schema descriptions (which already exist), but the clarification of identifier formats is helpful.

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 tool assigns a task to a collaborator by email, specifying the action and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling task tools like tasks_create or tasks_delete because it focuses on assignment, and it notes that it accepts multiple identifier types.

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 is used for assigning tasks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like tasks_resolve or tasks_start. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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