tentra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Assign' and 'update file mappings', implying a mutation operation, but does not specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 core purpose and followed by usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error cases, or return values. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'one or more files' and 'path → service_id pairs', which aligns with but does not expand on the schema's details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Assign'), resource ('files in a snapshot'), and target ('Tentra canvas service ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_domain_membership' or 'get_ownership' by focusing on file-to-service mapping rather than domain or ownership queries. It explicitly mentions 'Use after indexing', which further clarifies its role in the workflow.

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 with 'Use after indexing to declare which service owns each file', indicating when to use it in the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'set_domain_membership' for different mapping types, leaving some ambiguity.

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