assign_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '変更' implies a mutation, but the description does not mention required permissions, side effects, error handling, or whether changes are reversible. For a mutating tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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 gets straight to the point without any filler. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 tool's low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the one-sentence description is minimally viable: it states the purpose and the schema fills in parameter details. However, it lacks any mention of return values, errors, or permissions, which would be useful in a complete description.

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%, with both parameters (issueKey, accountId) clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the overall action, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'JIRA 課題の担当者を変更します' (Changes the assignee of a JIRA issue) uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_issue, but the action is specific enough to be understood.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_issue) or any prerequisites such as permissions or validation rules. It only states the basic function, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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