assign_website

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects like whether reassignment overwrites existing assignments, or if any validation occurs. Given the lack of detailed annotations, this is insufficient.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and easy to parse. It avoids unnecessary words, but could include one more sentence of behavioral context without harming conciseness.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, basic annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not mention essential usage details like whether the client or website must already exist, error conditions, or the result of the operation. An agent may misuse it without additional context.

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 having clear descriptions ('Website ID', 'Client ID'). The tool description adds relational context ('Assign a website to a client') that clarifies how the parameters interact, but does not provide additional details like allowed formats or sources. Baseline 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 'Assign a website to a client' uses a specific verb and clearly indicates the resource and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_website or update_client, which serve different purposes. However, it could be slightly more explicit about what 'assign' entails operationally.

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, such as creating a website with a client association or updating existing assignments. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., client must exist) or exclusions.

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