assign_seat

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the irreversible consequence: no tool exists to unseat a guest once assigned, and reassignment is the only way to change it.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the second sentence delivers the one piece of behavior an agent most needs to know.

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 4-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the key risk (irreversibility). It doesn't address failure modes (e.g., assigning already-seated guests or occupied seats), but nothing critical is missing for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters already document their source (get_seating_chart, list_unseated_guests, list_seating_charts). The description adds nothing param-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (assign) and resource (guest to a seat in a seating chart), which is unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_seating_chart and list_unseated_guests, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Implies usage by noting a guest can be moved later but not unseated, which is useful context for deciding whether to call it. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use instruction or alternative, and the precondition that the guest must be unseated is only inferable from the schema's guest_uuid source.

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