worktrees-assign_to_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool 'creates' an edge, implying a mutation, but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the association already exists, or any required permissions. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context is necessary.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool is simple with two required parameters and no output schema. The description captures the core purpose, but given no annotations and a lack of usage guidance, completeness is adequate but not enhanced. It does not describe return values or side effects, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Case ID (@rid format)' and 'Worktree ID (@rid format)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No refinement or extra details are provided.

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 ('Associates') and clearly identifies the objects ('worktree with a case') and the action ('creates HasWorktree edge'). It directly addresses what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'worktrees-unassign_from_case' which performs the inverse operation.

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 when to use 'worktrees-unassign_from_case' instead. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the worktree and case must exist) or context for appropriate usage. The agent would need to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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