create_assignment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the integrator-only restriction and an initial base_revision note, but does not mention side effects, persistence behavior, failure modes, or what the returned assignment looks like.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is terse to the point of omitting important context, so it earns high marks for conciseness but not perfect marks for structure/usefulness.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no meaningful parameter documentation, two brief facts are insufficient. The output schema helps with return shape but does not compensate for the missing input semantics and usage context.

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 0% across 10 parameters, and the description only obliquely references base_revision. It does not explain assignment_id, actor_id, actor_role, title, team_id, workspace_id, allowed_paths, acceptance_criteria, or metadata, leaving the agent without meaningful parameter guidance.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Create an assignment.' It is reasonably distinct from sibling tools like claim_assignment or create_acceptance_contract, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 provides a usage precondition ('Integrator-only') and an initial condition ('starts with base_revision=0'), but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_acceptance_contract or bind_assignment_to_contract.

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