assign_specific_license_seat_to_asset

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action and the norm to use the auto-select tool, but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, error conditions, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and a clear usage recommendation. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is very brief and omits critical context such as return values, error handling, and prerequisites. Given the mutating nature of the tool, the description is incomplete for safe and correct 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies seat_id (specific) and asset_id (target), but does not explain license_id or note. Since 3 required params are only partially explained, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter details.

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 it assigns an explicitly specified unique Seat ID to an asset. It distinguishes from the automatic selection tool by saying '通常は自動選択ツールを使用してください', implying this is for specific seat assignments. This gives a specific verb and resource.

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 states '通常は自動選択ツールを使用してください' (normally use the automatic selection tool), which is a clear recommendation for when not to use this tool. This works as a usage guideline despite not naming the sibling tool.

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