teamleader_projects_assign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only describes the basic action without mentioning side effects, permissions, whether existing assignments are replaced, or any irreversibility. The description adds almost no transparency beyond the literal 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, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it easy to scan. While more detail could be added, the conciseness is ideal for a tool 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description still lacks crucial context. The parameter 'id' is not explained, leaving users to guess whether it refers to the project or something else. With no output schema and no annotations, this description is insufficient for correct tool invocation.

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 0%, leaving the description to clarify parameters. It does hint that assignee_type can be 'user' or 'team', but it fails to explain the meaning of 'id' (likely project ID) and 'assignee_id'. The parameter names are generic and ambiguous without further explanation.

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 action: 'Wijs een gebruiker of team toe aan een nextgen-project' (Assign a user or team to a nextgen project). It specifies both the resource (user/team) and the target (nextgen-project), distinguishing it from sibling tools like unassign or add_owner.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the operation without any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. No explicit or even implied usage conditions are given.

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