assign_tool_to_agent

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

The description indicates the operation is a mutation ('add to toolkit'), but it does nothing to disclose side effects, idempotency, overwrite behavior, or required permissions. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and this is insufficient for a write operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second gives parameter guidance and a context-specific hint. Every phrase contributes value, and there is no waste.

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?

With four parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic usage and an example but leaves gaps. It fails to clarify what happens on duplicate assignments, whether both name and ID are needed, or what the response looks like, making it minimally viable but incomplete.

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 offers zero descriptions and no required fields for the four parameters. The description meaningfully clarifies that either tool_name or tool_id and either agent_name or agent_id can be used, which partially compensates for the schema's silence. It does not address whether both are required or the priority if both are provided, but adds useful structure.

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 'assign' and clearly identifies the resource ('a tool to an agent') with the parenthetical 'add to toolkit' reinforcing the action. It distinguishes from the sibling 'create_tool_and_assign_to_agent' by focusing on assigning an existing tool, and the MCP/ADK comment adds environmental clarity.

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 concrete example ('assign REST Countries to TimeWeatherAgent') and clarifies the environment ('use MCP, not ADK'), which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like create_tool_and_assign_to_agent or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions.

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