assign_issue

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

The description mentions the key behavioral detail of 'empty accountId to unassign' and indicates that lookup of the account ID via search_users is necessary. However, no annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden; it provides no hints about required permissions, error conditions, or the effect of a successful assignment.

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 only two sentences and each part has a clear purpose: core action, prerequisite lookup, and unassign behavior. It is front-loaded, minimal, and avoids unnecessary filler.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main workflow and the special unassign case. It does not mention permission requirements or what a successful response returns, but those are minor gaps given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 schema already documents both parameters with usable descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra value by directing the agent to use search_users to obtain the accountId, which goes slightly beyond the schema without adding redundant detail.

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 first sentence is a precise, verb-resource statement: 'Assign a Jira issue to a user by their account ID.' It clearly identifies the operation, the target resource, and the mechanism, and the tool's purpose is easily distinguishable from siblings like create_issue, update_issue, and search_users.

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?

It explicitly directs users to search_users as the prerequisite for finding account IDs and states how to unassign via an empty accountId. It stops just short of a 5 because it does not explicitly define when this tool should be used instead of siblings like transition_issue or update_issue.

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