downsize_assignment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions permission requirements and a confirmation parameter, but it does not describe whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or how unsupported cases are handled (beyond 'where supported'). The lack of return behavior or error conditions is a gap 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with key requirements. It wastes no words and is easy to parse.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, output schema, or parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. It omits critical details about the profile parameter, return value, error conditions, and the exact meaning of 'where supported'. An agent would struggle to call this tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only hints at the confirmation parameter ('exact assignment confirmation') and implies assignment_id from context, but it completely fails to explain the 'profile' parameter. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 verb ('set assignment size') and resource ('assignment'), with a clear scope ('to collected interviews where supported'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like change_assignment_quantity by specifying the intent to downsize, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 mentions prerequisites ('Requires fieldwork_write/admin_write') and a constraint ('exact assignment confirmation'), implying when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like change_assignment_quantity or assign_assignment.

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