assign_conversation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the host-approval gate and the wire-field note ('Sends agentId'), but never says what happens to the previously assigned agent or what 'confirm' actually authorizes — the most important consequence for a destructive mutation.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the Chinese sentence '先 list_agents 取坐席 id' is a verbatim duplicate of the preceding English instruction, and the 'agentId (assigneeId is the same value)' aside adds ambiguity rather than clarity. Two of four sentences do redundant work.

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 3-required-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the id-sourcing and approval prerequisites, which is the minimum. It leaves the reassignment side effect, the confirm contract, and any failure/return behavior unexplained.

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 only 33% — only assigneeId is documented in the schema, and the description usefully tells the agent where to source it. conversationId and confirm are undocumented in both places; 'Host must approve' hints at confirm's role but never states what it does or whether a false value aborts the call.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Assign a conversation to an agent.' That is enough to separate it from siblings like update_conversation_status or send_message, though it never explicitly names an alternative to contrast against.

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?

It states a concrete prerequisite ('Call list_agents first for assigneeId') and a gating condition ('Host must approve'), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of saying when not to use it or which sibling to pick when the conversation is already assigned.

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