atribuir_agente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral effect—'alterando o responsável (owner) do ticket'—which is valuable. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects (e.g., notifications to the assigned agent), making it only moderately transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the operation and its intended use.

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 straightforward assignment tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the target resource, and the use case. It does not mention the response format or parameter interactions, but these are not critical for a simple mutation tool with well-described schema.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the 'agente ou equipe' concept. The potential ambiguity between agenteId and equipe is not addressed, but that lies outside the description's added value.

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 assigns a ticket to a specific agent or team and changes the ticket's owner. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like criar_ticket (create) or alterar_status_ticket (change status).

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 includes an explicit usage context: 'Use para escalonar ou redistribuir tickets entre a equipe.' This tells the agent when to apply the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it does not fully meet the highest bar.

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