team_assign_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals governance bootstrap logic, post-bootstrap admin-only restriction, and explains the implications of each role (admin can manage roles/delete, reviewer has senior-review badge, etc.). This is thorough for a role assignment tool, though it does not mention whether reassignment overwrites or errors on duplicate.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then role definitions, then governance note, then example. It is not overly long and every sentence serves a purpose. Minor redundancy in repeating the role list could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 description covers purpose, roles, auth, and provides an example. However, it lacks any mention of return value or error handling (e.g., what happens on success, what if the handle doesn't exist). Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing if it returns confirmation or result.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by expanding on the role enum with detailed permissions (e.g., 'reviewer can senior-review (🛡️ badge, stronger recall boost)'), explaining governance bootstrap (making 'assigned_by' optional initially), and providing a concrete usage example. This goes beyond the schema's concise descriptions.

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 verb 'assign' and resource 'role to a team member on a shared brain instance'. It lists the four specific roles and distinguishes what each allows. This differentiates it from sibling tools like team_roster or team_audit which manage membership or logs, respectively.

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 explains when to use the tool (to assign roles) and provides important context: first call bootstraps governance (no auth needed), subsequent calls require admin. An example is given with 'assigned_by'. However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to alternative tools like team_grant_scope for scope management or when not to use this tool.

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