change_assignment_quantity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose permission requirements and hints at a confirmation safeguard, which suggests the operation is consequential. However, it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what happens to associated interviews, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 fluff. It states the action first, then the requirements, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters at 0% schema coverage. The description is too terse to cover what quantity means, how confirmation works, expected effects, or return values. More context is needed for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter semantics. It only hints at confirm_assignment_id via 'exact assignment confirmation' and leaves quantity, assignment_id, and profile unexplained. The term 'quantity' is somewhat self-explanatory, but the confirmation parameter's exact requirement (e.g., must match assignment_id) is not stated.

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 states a specific action ('Change') and resource ('assignment quantity'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'downsize_assignment' or 'change_assignment_status', though the quantity focus offers some inherent distinction.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires fieldwork_write/admin_write') and a safety instruction ('exact assignment confirmation'), but no guidance on when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as downsize_assignment or change_assignment_target_area. There is no mention of scenario, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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