Assign issue

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it changes handler and optionally status/note, but does not disclose overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or side effects (e.g., what happens if issue already assigned). Adequate but missing depth.

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 covering main functionality and optional features. Front-loaded with key action. No unnecessary words.

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 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the primary operation and key options. Lacks details on return value or post-condition, but adequate for selection and invocation.

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%, so description adds marginal value. It rephrases optional status and note, but does not clarify meaning beyond schema. No additional parameter semantics like format constraints or examples.

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?

Description clearly states the tool assigns an issue to a handler by login name or user id, optionally changes status, and appends a note. It distinguishes from siblings like mantis_add_note (only adds note) and mantis_resolve_issue (resolves issue). The verb 'assigns' and resource 'issue' are specific.

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?

Description implies usage for assigning issues and optionally updating status/note, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like mantis_add_note for just notes or mantis_update_issue for other changes. No 'when not to use' guidance.

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