Projects Create Assignment

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds only a date-format note and says nothing about required permissions, whether a resource must already exist, or how allocation_mode interacts with percent/fixed_hours/hours_per_day.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the format hint is parenthetical and unobtrusive. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a 10-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage the description is far too thin. The mutually exclusive scheduling parameters and the default allocation_mode='percent' behavior are critical gaps 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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly does not. It clarifies the date format for start_date/end_date and hints that phase_id is optional ('project or phase'), but leaves allocation_mode, percent, fixed_hours, hours_per_day, note, and user_id vs. placeholder resources entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Create a resource assignment') plus the scoping targets (project or phase), which distinguishes it from projects_update_assignment and projects_create_assignment_subtask at a glance. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance is given. An agent must infer from the verb alone that this is for new assignments rather than updates or subtask creation; the fact that either project_id or phase_id may be supplied is left completely unstated.

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