assign_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that it assigns (a mutation) but discloses no permissions requirements, side effects, or error conditions. The Cloud/Server note is a behavioral distinction but minimal for a state-changing operation.

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?

A single sentence with a conditional clause, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the format caveat is placed immediately after. 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the parameter format. It omits details like required permissions or behavior on invalid input, but those are common for assign operations and the description is adequate for an agent to infer typical API behavior.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds critical meaning beyond the schema by explaining when to use accountId vs username, which resolves ambiguity in the assignee parameter and improves correct usage.

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 the verb 'assign', resource 'Jira issue', and target 'user', and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_issue, update_issue, and transition_issue. The Cloud vs Server distinction further clarifies the operation's scope.

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?

Explicitly gives the condition for using the assignee format (Cloud vs Server) and the context that it assigns a user to an issue. Does not explicitly say 'do not use for X' but the sibling names and action verb make the intended use clear.

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