assign_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: the tool refuses to take a task from an existing assignee unless force=true, i.e. an overwrite guard. It is silent on permission requirements, idempotency for already-unassigned tasks, and any response information.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the core action stated first and the conditional guard second. Nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the risky path (forced reassignment) but leaves gaps around prerequisites, failure modes, and what the caller gets back. It is adequate but not sufficient on its own.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents id format ('T-007, T-7, 7'), force semantics, and how to unassign ('omit or empty'). The description only restates the force rule, adding no syntax or edge-case detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Set or clear the assignee of a task') that is distinct from siblings like change_task_status or block_task. It does not, however, differentiate itself from edit_task, which could plausibly also touch the assignee field.

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 implies its scope (assigning or unassigning) and gives one conditional rule ('unless force=true'), which is useful. But it names no alternatives and no explicit 'do not use this when' guidance, so an agent still has to infer whether edit_task is the better route for changing an assignee.

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