assign_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the transparency burden. It discloses that writes are gated by business rules, that rejections return a machine-readable error object ({ code, message }), and that attempts are recorded in the audit log. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a mere 'assign' statement, though it stops short of detailing all side effects (e.g., order status change) or authentication requirements.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first identifies what the tool does; the second explains write gating and error behavior.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential parts: the operation, the pending-order constraint, and error/audit behavior. It does not explain the success return value or permissions, but these gaps are less critical given the simplicity of the tool and the existing details.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It only paraphrases the parameters: 'pending order' implies orderId, and 'person' implies assignee, but it does not explain the expected format of assignee (e.g., user ID, email) or any other constraints beyond the schema's minLength:1. This is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 target ('a pending order'), and the recipient ('a person for fulfilment'). It is distinct from sibling tools like cancel_order, get_order, and search_order, which perform different operations on orders.

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 specifies the usage context: assigning a pending order to a person for fulfilment. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to identify this as the correct tool for assignment operations.

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