rsap_assign_support

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It clarifies that the support must be pre-existing and shows how to specify nodes, but it does not disclose whether existing supports on those nodes are replaced, how invalid names or node selections are handled, or any side effects. This is a moderate gap for a basic assignment tool.

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 concise: one main sentence and a compact argument list. It front-loads the purpose and every sentence provides necessary operational detail, with no wasted words.

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 that this is a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter semantics well. It could mention behavior on existing assignments or result feedback, but for the tool's complexity it is reasonably complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates. It explains support_name as a name of a support defined by rsap_define_support, and nodes as Robot selection text with concrete examples ('1 4' or '1to4'). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 tool's action: 'Assign an existing support label to a set of nodes.' It uses a specific verb plus resource and target, and the mention of 'existing' and 'defined with rsap_define_support' distinguishes it from defining supports and other assignment tools like rsap_assign_material or rsap_assign_section.

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 clear context by indicating the prerequisite that the support label must already exist via rsap_define_support, and it gives the node selection format. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer proper usage.

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