Reassign Agent

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only statement (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive operation (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not disclose side effects like the previous owner losing access, whether the target email must be an existing user, or any validation. Since nothing new is added over the annotations, the score is low.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and specific target. It contains zero waste and is immediately comprehensible.

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 mutation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It clearly states the operation and the key parameters. However, it could mention side effects (e.g., the original owner is removed), but given the low complexity and existing annotations, it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('The agent_id to reassign' and 'Email address of the new owner'). The description matches this but does not add extra semantic meaning beyond naming the target mechanism (by email), which the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Reassign ownership of an agent to another user by email.' The verb 'reassign' is specific, the resource is identified ('agent'), and the target is defined ('another user by email'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_create_agent or lyzr_update_agent.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to transfer agent ownership), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. There is no guidance about using this instead of lyzr_update_agent for ownership changes.

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