jira_assign_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Assign') but doesn't cover critical traits: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the assignment is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., notifications), or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in a mutation scenario.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('issueKey' and 'assignee'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource ('a Jira issue to a user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'jira_get_issue' or 'jira_update_issue' by focusing on assignment. However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., 'to a specific user' is implied but could be more precise), preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue), exclusions (e.g., not for unassigned issues), or comparisons to siblings like 'jira_update_issue' which might also handle assignments. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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