task_assign

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

With no annotations provided, the description only reveals the state transition effect. It does not disclose required permissions, error states, side effects on previous owners, or return values, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that communicates the core action efficiently. However, it omits essential details like parameter explanations and error conditions, making it slightly under-specified.

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 two required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks information on prerequisites, error handling, return values, or behavior in invalid states, making it incomplete for safe usage.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), and the tool description adds no clarification beyond 'task' context. The 'owner' parameter's format (e.g., user ID, email) is unspecified, providing minimal guidance.

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 clearly states the action ('Assign') and resource ('task'), and includes a state transition notation ('open/assigned → assigned'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'task_create' or 'task_resolve'.

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 usage for tasks in open or assigned states, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'claim' or 'task_block', nor does it mention when not to use it.

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