Assign or unassign a conversation to a team member by passing an assignee ID, or null to unassign. Route inbox conversations to the right owner.
Assign or unassign a conversation to a team member. Pass null to unassign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assignee_id | Yes | ||
| conversation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds only the null-unassign semantic and reveals nothing about what the destructive behavior entails — whether an existing assignment is overwritten, whether the prior assignee is notified, or what permissions are required.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the operation is stated first and the non-obvious null convention immediately follows.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the null convention but omits permission/authorization requirements, overwrite semantics for reassignment, and any side effects (notifications, state changes) an agent would need to call it safely.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It meaningfully clarifies assignee_id=null as the unassign signal, which the schema's anyOf string/null typing does not explain on its own. conversation_id is left entirely to inference, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?
States a specific verb pair (assign/unassign) and resource (conversation) plus the target (team member), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like close_conversation or send_message. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling or note scope boundaries (e.g., single vs bulk).
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 sentence 'Pass null to unassign' gives one concrete usage condition, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus close_conversation, what permissions are needed, or what happens to a pre-existing assignee when reassigning. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.