assign_runner_to_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions POST, indicating a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens if the runner is already assigned. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the endpoint. There is no unnecessary content, making it highly efficient.

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 the simplicity of the tool, the description is minimal but lacks essential context. For a mutation operation, it would benefit from notes on idempotency, required permissions, and any side effects. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves the description incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly define the parameters 'project' and 'runner_id'. The endpoint shows ':id' suggesting project ID, but there is no elaboration on the format (e.g., 'project' could be ID or path). Parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 a project runner to a project') and includes the specific HTTP endpoint (POST /projects/:id/runners). This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like unassign_runner_from_project.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or point to related tools such as list_project_runners or unassign_runner_from_project. Usage is only implied by the action name.

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