rm_create_assignment

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and placement on a project or phase, but it does not disclose behavior around allocation_mode, percent, fixed_hours, or potential conflicts.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It loses one point because the extreme brevity leaves out details that an agent needs for a 10-parameter creation tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 10 parameters and no schema descriptions for any of them. The description explains only the date format and high-level target, omitting guidance on optional fields like allocation_mode, percent, fixed_hours, and phase_id usage. This is incomplete for confident 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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies date formatting and the project/phase placement, but leaves allocation_mode, percent vs fixed_hours, hours_per_day, and note semantics unexplained, despite those names not being fully self-evident.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('resource assignment') with an explicit scope of 'project or phase'. It is clear enough to distinguish from tools like rm_create_assignment_subtask, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_update_assignment, rm_delete_assignment, or rm_create_assignment_subtask. It also does not mention prerequisites like whether a project or phase must already exist.

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