Assign provider

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it notifies the provider, returns the booking as get_booking shows it, and refuses unavailable providers unless overridden. It does not explicitly state whether an existing provider is replaced (though destructiveHint=true implies mutation), but overall transparency is strong.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by behavioral details. Zero waste; every sentence adds value.

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 the mutation nature (annotations cover safety) and absence of an output schema, the description explains return shape, side effects (provider notification), and refusal logic. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for even_if_unavailable (refusal logic) and implies whole_schedule scope ('or to its whole recurring schedule'), going beyond the schema's brief default descriptions.

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 (assign) and resource (provider or team to a booking), and explicitly extends scope to the whole recurring schedule. It clearly distinguishes the operation from siblings like create_booking or reschedule_booking.

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?

It gives clear context ('as Assign in the booking's sidebar does') and a key conditional behavior (refusal when unavailable unless even_if_unavailable is true). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it, though no direct sibling performs assignment.

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