assign_worker

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is mutating, requires permissions, or how it handles pre-existing assignments. The minimal description provides insufficient transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and lists job types. Structure is optimal for quick consumption.

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 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain how optional parameters (poolPair, roomId) relate to specific job types, though the schema does. Could be more helpful by linking them.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it lists job types already present in the enum. No extra value provided.

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 ('Put a baseling to work') and identifies the resource (baseling) with job types listed. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unassign_worker' and 'get_assignments', though could be more precise (e.g., 'assign' instead of 'put').

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While sibling names provide context (e.g., 'unassign_worker' is the inverse), the description offers no explicit usage conditions or recommendations.

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