⚠️ Hierarchy: assign listings

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

The description extensively details behavioral traits beyond annotations: irreversibility, idempotency via idempotencyKey, dryRun support, and HTTP 204 response. It aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true) and adds significant context, enabling informed invocation.

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, well-structured paragraph with all critical information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description covers key aspects: action, permissions, parameter sources, idempotency, dry run, and response. Minor omission of error scenarios, but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the source of employeeId (from hierarchy_get_employees_v1) and explaining dryRun's purpose, enhancing understanding 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 action: assigning listings to an employee within the account hierarchy. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., hierarchy_get_employees_v1) by referencing them as sources for parameters, making the tool's purpose and relationship to others explicit.

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 explains when to use the tool (to assign/reassign listings) and provides prerequisites (hierarchy permissions, employeeId from hierarchy_get_employees_v1). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the irreversible note and idempotency details offer implicit guidance.

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