kernel_projects_assign_office

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating tool. It implies state change (assign, pause, update settings) but says nothing about required permissions, whether existing settings are merged or replaced, reversibility, or what a paused office looks like.

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?

A single short sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical adds real information about alternate modes, though its compressed form creates ambiguity about how the modes map to parameters.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form object, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. The multi-mode behavior is only implied parenthetically, leaving an agent unable to confidently construct the settings payload or predict the result.

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%: flow_id and project are documented in the schema, while 'active' and the open-ended 'settings' object are not. The description gestures at 'pause' (implying active=false) and 'update its settings' but gives no key names, merge semantics, or constraints for the nested object, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb phrase 'Make an office serve a project' identifies the resources (office/flow and project) but uses the vague word 'serve' for what is really an assignment operation. The parenthetical 'or pause/update its settings for it' reveals that one tool handles three distinct modes without saying how they differ, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling kernel_projects_link.

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 pick this over kernel_projects_link or kernel_projects_pull, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only hint of conditional behavior is the parenthetical 'pause/update', which signals alternative usage but not what selects each mode.

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