vk_post_tasks_08322d9fc186

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It effectively reveals a critical side effect: 'Every user not in the project will be unassigned from the task, pass an empty array to unassign everyone.' It also states authentication is required and that the doer must have edit rights. This goes beyond basic safety to disclose surprising behavior, though it doesn't detail response formats or idempotency.

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 functionally structured but contains redundancy: 'Add multiple new assignees to a task' appears verbatim twice. It is not overly long, but the duplication wastes words. The key behavioral warnings and parameter notes are present, though a tighter version would improve clarity.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides a robust set of context: purpose, prerequisites, side effects, parameter handling, and authentication. It is largely complete for a mutation proxy, but the optional/required body contradiction and lack of any return-value hints leave minor gaps. Overall, it covers the essential operational context well.

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?

The description adds useful notes about parameter aliases and top-level fields, but it contradicts the schema by calling the body field 'optional' when the schema lists 'body' as required. This mismatch could mislead an agent about invocation requirements. The schema already documents 'body' as an array of assignees, so the added value is undermined by the inconsistency.

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 clearly states 'Add multiple new assignees to a task' as the primary purpose, with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the exact REST endpoint (POST /tasks/{taskID}/assignees/bulk), distinguishing it from generic task proxies. This fully clarifies what the tool does.

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 provides context for when to use the tool (adding assignees) and notes prerequisites like project access and edit permissions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit. There is no comparison to sibling tools like other vk_post_tasks_* endpoints.

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