reassign_candidate

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral details: 'Existing meetings cascade to the new role' and 'Records the reassignment in reassignmentAuditLogs with the optional reason.' It also warns about affecting open meetings. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value (side effects, audit logging, usage warnings). It is slightly verbose but not wasteful; could be more streamlined but remains effective.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it does, side effects (meetings cascade), recording in audit logs, and when to ask for confirmation. It lacks details on return value or potential errors, but overall it provides sufficient context 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names all three parameters (candidate_id, to_role_id, reason) and explains that reason is optional. However, it does not provide further detail like data types or expected values beyond what the schema shows. This adds moderate value but leaves gaps.

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: 'Move a candidate from their current role to a different one.' It specifies the verb (move/reassign) and resource (candidate), and the mention of existing meetings and audit logs adds specificity. Among siblings, no other tool performs reassignment, so it is well-distinguished.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'ASK BEFORE CALLING if either candidate_id or to_role_id is not unambiguous from the user's message.' It also instructs to confirm before moving because 'Reassignment affects all the candidate's open meetings.' This tells the agent when to call and when to avoid automated invocation.

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