⚠️ Hierarchy: assign listings

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

Full disclosure: irreversible operation, HTTP 204 response, repeated call reassigns, dryRun for preview, idempotencyKey behavior. Annotations show destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and description aligns perfectly, adding crucial behavioral context.

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?

Four sentences front-loaded with the primary action, followed by warnings, prerequisites, and parameter sourcing. No fluff; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Covers workflow (assign, irreversibly), return type (204 no body), prerequisite tools, permissions, dryRun and idempotency. Missing details like pagination or limits, but schema covers maxItems and minItems. For 4 params and no output schema, it is highly complete.

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 100% with descriptions, but the tool description adds value: employeeId from hierarchy_get_employees_v1, itemIds are listing IDs, dryRun is safe preview, idempotencyKey for duplicate protection. This context beyond schema merits a high score.

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 assigns listings to an employee (link_items), changes ownership, and that repeated calls reassign. It distinguishes from siblings like hierarchy_get_employees_v1 (get employee list) and hierarchy_check_ah_user_v1 (check permissions).

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?

It explains when to use (assign listings), mentions prerequisites (hierarchy permissions, account-hierarchy plan), and directs to sibling tools for employeeId and user state. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other assignment methods.

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