reassign_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one real side effect: reassignment "generates handoff context." It omits whether new assignees are notified, whether old assignees are removed or added to, permission requirements, and whether the change is reversible.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no padding. The trailing "Generates handoff context" earns its place as a side-effect note, though "handoff context" itself is vague enough that it borders on filler.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover permissions, notification behavior, and whether new_assignees replaces or appends to existing assignees. The description covers none of these, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking a write operation.

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 all three parameters (task_id, handoff_notes, new_assignees) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or cardinality detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Reassign a task") plus the scope ("to different team members"), which distinguishes it from the generic update_task. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the closely-named sibling assign_task, leaving the agent to infer the initial-assignment vs. re-assignment boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "Reassign" signals this applies when a task already has owners being swapped out, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (assign_task, update_task). An agent must infer the routing from the verb alone.

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