df_assign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a key behavior—no-op when the issue already has an assignee—which is useful, but it omits return values, error behavior, and permission requirements.

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 that front-loads the core action and adds only the important idempotency behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it defines the action, the scope, and the no-op case. It could mention what the tool returns on success or failure, but the call itself is unlikely to be misused.

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 the issueKey parameter is already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema covers the only parameter.

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 action ('Asignar un issue') and the target scope ('al usuario actual'), so the tool's purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like df_issue or df_transition, but the current-user assignment scope is distinctive enough.

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 implies when to use the tool: to assign an issue to the current user, and it hints that calling it on an already-assigned issue has no effect. However, it provides no explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance or exclusion conditions.

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