workiva_reassign_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Reassign a task' without explaining side effects, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a minimal statement of action but lacks any contextual detail.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the verb phrase, followed by a single arg docstring. Every line earns its place with no fluff, though it may be under-specified for a non-obvious action.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no annotations and minimal description. It does not mention usage context, behavioral effects, or state requirements. While the single parameter is simple and an output schema exists, the lack of guidance makes it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 0% description coverage, but the description includes an Args section explaining task_id as 'The task UUID'. This adds some semantic value beyond the schema's type, though it is redundant with the parameter name and does not describe format variations or required values.

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 'Reassign a task', which is a clear verb+resource. It is distinct from siblings like submit_task or approve_task, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_task. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like workiva_update_task or workiva_submit_task. There is no mention of prerequisites, task state, or decision criteria, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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