Assign a user or team to a project to set ownership and clarify responsibility.
Assign a user or team to a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The project ID | |
| assignee_id | Yes | The user or team ID to assign | |
| assignee_type | Yes | Type of assignee |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, or whether the assignment overwrites existing ones, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 sentence with no redundancy; the core purpose is front-loaded and immediately clear. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description is minimal and does not explain the broader context of assignment, such as how it differs from adding an owner or customer, or what the response indicates. For a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, more context is needed for correct use.
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?
All three parameters are already described in the schema, and the description adds no additional semantic detail about how they interact or any constraints beyond the enum. Baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.
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 action (assign), the object (a user or team), and the target (a project). This distinguishes it from unassign and other project-related tools like add owner, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teamleader_add_project_owner or teamleader_unassign_project. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.