indico_assign_contribution_session

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true – a bare mutation profile. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: Indico may unschedule the contribution when its slot no longer fits, which is a non-obvious side effect an agent should anticipate. It stops short of stating auth requirements or reversibility.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the primary operation is front-loaded ahead of the side-effect caveat.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one real gap is the missing routing guidance against sibling schedule/move tools for a mutation that overlaps with them.

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 75% and the schema already explains that a null session_id removes the contribution from its session, which is exactly what the description restates. No additional syntax, format, or edge-case meaning is contributed beyond the schema.

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+resource pair ('Move a contribution into a session') and covers the inverse operation, so the agent knows this is the session-assignment tool. It doesn't name or contrast with close siblings like indico_schedule_contribution or indico_move_timetable_entry, leaving some ambiguity about which mover to pick.

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?

'or out of it' implies the removal case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as indico_schedule_contribution. Usage must be inferred from the operation itself.

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