conduyt_project_blue_assign_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does so: it discloses the one-line-per-agent constraint, the displacement semantics ('MOVES it'), that the response's `released` enumerates what was displaced, and both 404 error codes. This is exactly the destructive side-effect context annotations would otherwise supply.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, then invariants, then error/permission details — every sentence adds a fact an agent would otherwise have to discover by failing. 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the `released` field returned on displacement. Combined with permission, error codes, and the uniqueness invariant, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret success.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: userId=null is framed as the release operation, and the interaction between lineId and userId (assignment moving an existing holder) is explained rather than just typed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Assign a Project Blue line to an agent, or release it') and names the release variant inline. It is distinguishable from siblings like conduyt_project_blue_lines (listing) because the description scopes itself to assignment/release of a single line.

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?

Clear preconditions for when the call succeeds: line must exist on the vendor account now, agent must be an active member, and settings:edit is required. It does not explicitly route to a sibling for finding the lineId (only the schema references conduyt_project_blue_lines), so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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