Assign person

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the description correctly doesn't restate that. It adds real context beyond the annotations: master data is untouched, an overload over time is a legitimate (non-blocked) planning state surfaced in the report, and the change costs one undo step. Missing only details like required permissions.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by alternatives and side-effect notes. Three tight sentences with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Combined with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies the routing, reversibility, and validation context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 all four parameters (including utilization with its default and bounds) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the quantity=1/0 semantics but adds nothing the schema does not already carry, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Assigns one specific existing person to a task') and covers the inverse operation via 'quantity 0'. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (rillsoft_resource_usage_set, rillsoft_task_resource_assignment_fill), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 explicit routing rules: this tool is for one task–one person, resource_usage_set for one person across many tasks, and task_resource_assignment_fill for filling many tasks at once. When-to-use and the alternatives are both spelled out.

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