machine_assign_workshop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a mutation ('Move') but does not describe side effects, required permissions, whether the machine must be idle, what happens if the workshop is invalid, or any return behavior.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words, making it structurally efficient. It is arguably under-specified, but for the conciseness dimension itself, it performs well.

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 mutation tool with two required string parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too sparse. An agent lacks essential context about prerequisites, side effects, and expected outcomes.

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 0% and neither parameter is named or explained in the description. The words 'machine' and 'workshop' loosely map to printer_id and workshop_id, but there is no syntax, format, or identifier guidance to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 description states a specific verb (Move) and resource (machine) with a clear destination (another workshop), which is more precise than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like workshop_update or add_printer, so it cannot earn a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The sentence 'Move a machine to another workshop' merely restates the action without adding contextual routing information.

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