Match a process with a position by supplying process and position IDs, optionally narrowing by agency or department.
Assign a position to a process
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agencyId | No | Optional agency ID | |
| processId | Yes | The ID of the process | |
| positionId | Yes | The ID of the position to assign | |
| departmentId | No | Optional department ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers only the bare action. It does not disclose whether the assignment overwrites an existing position, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. This is the minimum implied mutation with no behavioral detail.
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?
One concise sentence with no filler or repetition, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, the brevity sacrifices important usage and behavioral context, so it is not a fully effective description.
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 no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits behavioral consequences and usage context; though the schema covers parameters, the agent lacks details about side effects and when to call it. It is minimally usable but incomplete.
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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the action, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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?
States a specific action—'Assign'—with a clear object ('a position') and recipient ('a process'). This distinguishes it from siblings like process_create and process_launch, which are creation and execution operations, and position_search, which is a lookup.
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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives; no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions. The only implied usage is the action itself, leaving the agent to infer when it applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.