Assign machine role

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it's 'one undo step', which usefully signals undo granularity. However it doesn't mention what happens to a conflicting assignment, how re-assignment on the same task behaves, or the utilization semantics beyond what the schema says.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the action, then add scope and sibling context. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation profile. The description includes the master-data source (rillsoft_resource_pool_catalog_list) and undo behavior, though it doesn't clarify the machineRoleId provenance explicitly in the text (schema does). Adequate but one could want more on assignment conflicts.

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% and all four parameters are documented in the schema, including quantity=0 removal and utilization bounds. The description only reinforces quantity=0, adding no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (assigns/removes) and resource (machine role to a task), including the removal edge case (quantity 0). It also explicitly names its sibling rillsoft_task_role_assignment_set as the 'twin' for a different domain, which lets the agent distinguish them.

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 explains the when (assigning a machine role from master data) and the removal condition (quantity 0), and points to the task_role sibling for contrast. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus rillsoft_task_machine_assignment_set or rillsoft_task_machine_role_assignment_derive, so it falls short of a 5.

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