Assign Card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is bidirectional (assign or unassign), which is useful, but omits permission/auth requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens when the user is already assigned, and any side effects on notifications.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse given the tool's dual behavior, but nothing wasteful is present.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the parameters are documented. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should have covered permissions, idempotency, and the board-lookup dependency, all of which are absent.

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 all four parameters (card, user, board, remove) are already fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the verb, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (assign/unassign) and resource (user-to-card) that lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like tag_card or add_comment. It does not explicitly differentiate from other card-mutation tools, but the scope is clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the board-resolution requirement even though the schema flags it as needed for name lookups. The 'remove' flag implies a dual purpose but the description leaves usage entirely to inference.

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