project_assign_teams

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but not side effects (e.g., whether existing team assignments are replaced or appended), authorization requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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?

While the description is short (4 words), it sacrifices necessary detail. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity and completeness; this description is under-specified.

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 complexity (3 params including a nested 'body' object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain expected input format, response, or prerequisites, making it inadequate for effective tool use.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with low description coverage (33% only for 'options'). The description adds no meaning to 'projectId' or 'body', leaving agents uncertain what the body should contain (e.g., team IDs, assignment rules). This is a critical gap.

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 teams to a project' clearly indicates the action (assign) and resource (teams to a project), distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_get_teams (retrieval) and project_create (project creation). However, it could be more specific about whether it replaces or adds teams.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., project_get_teams for reading, project_remove_user for user removal). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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