feature_reassign

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses two non-obvious traits: the id remains stable so external citations still resolve, and the move is recorded in history with its reason. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but for a move operation the disclosed context is meaningful.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: the action is front-loaded, followed by the two behavioral guarantees, then the usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place and the description is easy to scan.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the move does, why the id matters, how history records it, and when to use it. It does not describe the return value or side effects on old/new goals, but those are largely implied by 'move' and are not required by the schema.

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 covers cwd, goal, and note, but leaves id and actor bare. The description adds semantics to id ('never changes') and to note ('recorded in history with its reason'), partially compensating for the 60% schema coverage. It does not explain actor, but that is a minor gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a feature to a different goal.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as feature_propose, feature_update, feature_link, and feature_unlink by naming the intended mutation and target.

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 a concrete trigger: 'Use when a refined objective shows an item does not belong where it was filed.' It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the stated condition is enough to route an agent to this tool rather than generic update or link actions.

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