change_specialist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: that the call disables automatic specialist assignment (a persistent side effect, not just a toggle) and that it verifies the resulting count. It still omits permission requirements, behavior on an invalid or full slot, and error handling.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the critical add/remove semantics and the side effect come first. Minor phrasing awkwardness ('like clicking a slot') costs a little, but nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action, its side effect, and its verification, which is adequate. It stops short of documenting error cases, cost, or what the verified count result looks like, leaving an agent to discover those by trial.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the least self-evident parameter by mapping add=true to add and false to remove, plus clarifying that building refers to a BUILDING_* identifier. city_id is left to inference, but it is unambiguous from the name.

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 pair (add/remove) and a specific resource (one specialist in a BUILDING_* from city_screen), which is far more concrete than a bare tool name. It implicitly contrasts with automatic assignment but never names the sibling set_auto_specialists, which would have sharpened differentiation.

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?

It tells the agent the toggle semantics (add=true to add, false to remove) and implies this is the manual-counterpart to automatic assignment, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative such as set_auto_specialists.

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