assign_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only says 'assign a ticket to a user' without specifying whether it changes the ticket status, sends notifications, is reversible, or requires special permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant omission.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no fluff. However, it is essentially a reiteration of the tool name with slightly more context ('to a user'), offering no additional structural benefits. It is concise but under-specified, so it doesn't earn a higher score.

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 simple mutation tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, parameter clarification, and usage context. The user would be left uncertain about the tool's full effects and requirements.

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 only 50% (user_id is described, id is not). The description adds minimal meaning: it implies one parameter is the ticket and the other the user, but it doesn't explicitly state that 'id' refers to the ticket ID. The user_id description already covers that parameter, so the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 tool's action: assigning a ticket to a user. It uses a specific verb ('assigner') and resource ('ticket'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_ticket or close_ticket. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the ticket existing or the user being eligible, nor does it say whether to use it before resending or closing a ticket. No context is provided for when this action is appropriate.

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