swsd_assign_incident

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

Description adds 'WRITE — does not retry on transient failure' beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), providing crucial retry guidance. No contradiction with annotations; it complements them effectively.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: states action, differentiates from sibling, gives usage tip, and flags failure behavior. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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 two-parameter write tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, and failure behavior comprehensively. No gaps remain.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, but description adds context: the id field auto-detects internal vs. human-facing numbers, and assignee_email must be a valid available agent. This goes beyond raw schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Assign an SWSD incident to an agent by email') and distinguishes it as a 'Safer wrapper around swsd_update_incident' that narrows the decision surface to assignment only, differentiating it from sibling tools like swsd_update_incident.

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?

Explicitly recommends using swsd_list_users first to find valid assignees and warns about transient failures. It implies when to use (for assignment) versus alternatives (use swsd_update_incident for broader updates), though it doesn't list explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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