FogBugz

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by implying a mutation ('assigns'). The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying that the assignee can be identified by name or email, which is useful for understanding input format. However, it doesn't detail side effects like notifications or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise example. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying usage without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (destructive mutation with 2 parameters), annotations cover safety aspects, and schema fully describes inputs. The description adds practical usage context with an example. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., success confirmation), leaving a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'name or email' for the assignee, which is already covered in the schema's description. No additional syntax or constraints are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 verb ('assigns') and resource ('a FogBugz case'), specifying it assigns to a specific user. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_case' or 'resolve_case' by focusing solely on assignment functionality.

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 an example that implies usage when needing to assign a case, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_case' (which might handle assignments among other updates) or mention prerequisites (e.g., case must be open). No explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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