assign_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key non-obvious behaviors: all other applicants are rejected, and an above-budget agreed_amount is escrowed in addition. It omits irreversibility, authorization requirements, and what happens to funds already escrowed for the job, which are meaningful gaps for a commitment/mutation 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the side effect and the one conditional parameter that changes behavior. No filler.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential side effects and the tricky counter-offer case. It does not describe the response or whether the assignment can be undone, which would matter for an escrow-affecting operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds consequence-level meaning the schema lacks: passing agreed_amount escrows the extra amount, not just 'accepting a counter-offer'. deliver_in_hours and the required ids are left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Choose which applicant does a job you posted') and states the primary consequence (other applicants are told no). It is clear in isolation, but with a sibling like hire_human present it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the direct-hire path, leaving some ambiguity about which tool applies in which situation.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: use it to pick one applicant for a job you posted, and the conditional branch for accepting a counter-offer above budget via agreed_amount. It does not name alternatives (hire_human, post_job) or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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