Definir (ou tirar) o responsável de uma tarefa

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses important side effects and constraints: only one assignee, assigning another swaps the previous one, null removes, and the person must be a project member. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and front-loaded: three sentences cover the core rule, the swap behavior, and the clearing mechanism. Every sentence provides distinct, necessary information without redundancy.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors, prerequisites, and side effects. It lacks explicit return/error information, but this is not critical for a straightforward assign operation and the annotations plus schema already fill in key structured 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?

The schema already has full descriptions for all three parameters (task, project, assignee). The description adds semantic depth by explaining that project is where the username is resolved and that the person must participate in that project, which goes beyond the schema's literal field 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 uses a specific verb ('Definir (ou tirar) o responsável') and clearly states it sets or removes the assignee of a task. It also highlights the uniqueness constraint ('UMA pessoa é responsável... não existem dois'), which distinguishes it from the general update tool (systemtask_task_update) and other siblings.

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 explains when to use the tool (to assign or remove an assignee) and provides key usage rules: marking another person swaps, null clears, and the person must be in the project. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear that this is the dedicated tool for assignment.

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