vk_put_tasks_2121c1502275

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions auth and permission constraints, which helps, but it also falsely claims the body field is optional while the schema marks it as required. This misleading statement could cause incorrect invocation. It also omits idempotency/error 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 compact and front-loaded, but it repeats 'Adds a new assignee to a task' twice, which is redundant. Still, it is efficient overall and covers essential information without excessive length.

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 simple raw proxy with no output schema, the description covers key aspects (operation, prerequisites, auth, parameter handling). Gaps include the incorrect 'optional body' claim and no mention of error cases or return format, though the raw proxy nature implies the endpoint's response.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that path/query parameters are top-level fields and that camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted, which is beyond the schema. The 'optional body' error slightly detracts, but the additional guidance is meaningful.

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 the action (add a new assignee) and the specific resource (task) via both natural language and the explicit REST endpoint 'PUT /tasks/{taskID}/assignees'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other operations.

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?

Provides clear context for use: prerequisites (assignee needs project access, doer must be able to edit), required authentication, and parameter passing conventions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, 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.