add_task_assignee

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. 'Add an assignee' implies a mutation but does not mention permissions, whether the operation is additive or replaces existing assignees, what happens if the assignee is already assigned, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is front-loaded and free of extraneous words. While it is minimal, it effectively communicates the core function, warranting a high score for conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context such as return value, permission requirements, or behavior on duplicate assignment. The schema covers parameters, but the absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps in overall completeness. A more robust description would mention safety or side effects.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters with descriptions ('The ID of the task' and 'The user ID to assign'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is complete.

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 'Add an assignee to a ClickUp task' uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('assignee to a ClickUp task'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'remove_task_assignee' and 'add_task_tag'. It unambiguously states the action and object.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to assign a user to a task. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action is self-evident and opposite tools (e.g., remove_task_assignee) are easily understood. Lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or when not to use, but the simplicity of the operation makes this less critical.

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