assign_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the round-trip behavior for units, the default value when omitted (1.0), and that mapping is to an internal accessor. This exceeds minimal expectations.

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 well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds unique value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 covers parameters, return format, and side effects (round-trip, defaults). It lacks error handling or prerequisite info, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden. Nearly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds detailed semantics for all three parameters: task_id and resource_id are explained as 'uniqueID', and units gets a full explanation including type, default, round-trip behavior, and boundary handling.

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 opens with 'Assign a resource to a task' which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'unassign_resource' (reverse operation) and 'list_assignments' (read-only).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to assign vs. unassign, or prerequisites like existing resource/task). The description focuses on mechanics, not usage context.

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