Derive roles from assignments

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations: existing role assignments are replaced, quantity/volume are derived, one undo step, and skipped tasks are reported with cause. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure (what is destroyed, undo availability, failure reporting). It doesn't explicitly restate reversibility caveats but the 'One undo step' line covers it well.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; scope and replacement semantics are front-loaded, sibling routing follows, and the skipped[] reporting detail closes it out. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutating tool with one optional param, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining pieces: replacement semantics, derivation source, undo availability, and skipped-task reporting. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains that empty taskUuids means every eligible task of the visible project/subproject. The description doesn't add syntax or format details beyond that. 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 ('rebuilds the role assignments of each task') and resource ('concrete people assigned to it'), and names the sibling tools this is not (rillsoft_task_machine_role_assignment_derive, rillsoft_task_role_assignment_set). An agent can distinguish it from all siblings 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?

Explicitly names two alternatives and the condition that selects each: machine kinds go to rillsoft_task_machine_role_assignment_derive, single-role manual setting goes to rillsoft_task_role_assignment_set. No inference required.

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