Assign issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance beyond the title: passing an empty value unassigns the issue. It also reveals the API-variant behavior for v3 vs v2. It does not cover permissions or side effects, but the core operation and edge case are clearly conveyed.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and captures both the core behavior and the version-specific parameter mapping. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 three-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, the unassign behavior, the endpoint, and the version-specific parameter usage. It could be slightly clearer that the 'empty value' refers to the assignee field, but the schema and description together are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable meaning by explaining which parameter to use depending on API version: accountId for v3 and name for v2. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Assign (or unassign, with an empty value) an issue to a user.' It also names the exact endpoint, PUT /issue/{key}/assignee, which clearly distinguishes this assignee-focused operation from broader issue mutations like update_issue or transition_issue.

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 makes clear when to use the tool: for assigning or unassigning an issue to a user. It adds version-specific guidance by stating 'accountId on v3 and name on v2,' which helps select the correct parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it.

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