Derive machine kinds from assignments

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds what the annotations cannot: existing machine role assignments are replaced, quantity and volume are recomputed, it costs one undo step, and skipped tasks are reported with a cause. That is concrete disclosure of what gets destroyed and what the run produces.

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-loads the transformation, then alternatives, then caveats (undo step, skipped tasks) in a dense, information-rich paragraph. Every sentence earns its place, though the flow is slightly packed for a single block.

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?

With an output schema present and destructive/idempotent annotations supplied, the description still fills the remaining gaps: replacement semantics, undo cost, and error handling via skipped[]. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter's meaning (empty = every eligible task of the visible project/subproject) is already documented there. The description reinforces scope indirectly via the skipped[] note but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline 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 (derive/rebuild) and resource (machine role assignments of each task), and explains the transformation precisely: rebuild role assignments from concrete machine assignments, with quantity/volume derived from those machines. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling set/derive tools, which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives with conditions: people are handled by rillsoft_task_role_assignment_derive, and setting a single machine kind by hand goes through rillsoft_task_machine_role_assignment_set. This covers when to use this tool versus the two nearest competitors.

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