marrow_assign_project_policy_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the call is mutating and requires full-scope key, but does not reveal other behavioral traits such as whether existing assignments are overwritten, idempotency, or error behavior. Some transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise, one sentence with two clear clauses. Every word adds value: purpose, mutation status, and permission requirement. 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?

For a simple tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, side-effect nature, and auth requirement. It lacks explicit discussion of return values or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already described well. The description does not add additional meaning about parameter formatting or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline 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 a specific verb ('Assign') and resource ('active governance policy profile') with a target ('project key'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like marrow_policy_profiles (listing) or marrow_create_policy_profile (creating).

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 provides useful context (mutating call, requires full scope key) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like marrow_policy_resolve or marrow_create_policy_profile. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with siblings.

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