rm_update_assignment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with a mutating but not destructive operation. The description adds the field scope (dates, percent, hours) but does not clarify important update semantics, such as whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, or how the nullable schema defaults behave. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description provides some added value but not rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence containing only essential information. Every word contributes to stating the action, target, and scope, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given seven parameters and zero schema descriptions, this description is far too thin to give an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It omits update semantics, parameter constraints, and any explanation of how the nullable defaults interact with an existing assignment. The output schema exists, so return-value details are less critical, but the input side is insufficiently specified.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It mentions dates, allocation percentage, and hours, but these terms add little beyond the schema property titles ('Start Date', 'End Date', 'Percent', 'Fixed Hours', 'Hours Per Day'). It does not explain the relationship between fixed_hours and hours_per_day, the meaning of note, or any value constraints, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 ('Update'), a clear resource ('an existing assignment'), and enumerates the updatable attributes (dates, allocation percentage, hours). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like rm_create_assignment, rm_get_assignment, and rm_delete_assignment.

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 phrase 'on an existing assignment' implies this tool is for modifying existing records rather than creating or deleting them, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. There is no direct guidance about using rm_create_assignment for new assignments or rm_delete_assignment for removals, leaving the context only implicit.

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