taskops_assign

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses mutating actions (assigning cards, cutting worktrees) and sub-agent spawning, but lacks detail on reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior. It gives core behavior without deep consequences.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant words. Efficiently packs the workflow into a readable format.

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 tool is complex (multi-step, sub-agent spawning) and there's no output schema. The description mentions returning paste-ready briefs but not their structure or additional side effects. It's adequate but lacks depth for a task of this complexity.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter info. It mentions 'cut one worktree each' which aligns with the worktrees parameter, but adds no new semantics beyond the schema.

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's function: assign cards to workers, cut worktrees, return paste-ready briefs, and spawn sub-agents. The verb 'assign' and specific actions distinguish it from sibling tools like taskops_take or taskops_update.

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?

'Orchestrator only' provides explicit context on who should call it, and 'spawn one sub-agent per brief' implies it's for delegation workflows. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or specify when not to use it.

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