Toggle Card Assignment

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the toggle behavior: if the user is already assigned they will be unassigned, and if not assigned they will be assigned. This is useful behavioral context that the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations alone do not provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and toggle rule, followed by a brief usage statement. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name and every sentence contributes value.

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 simple toggle endpoint with rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description is complete: it explains the operation, the state-flipping behavior, and the intended use case. It does not describe response payloads or error conditions, but there is no output schema and this could be inferred from typical API behavior.

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%, and the schema already explains assignee_id, card_number, and account_slug, including examples and the distinction between card_number and card_id. The description adds little to parameter semantics beyond confirming that assignee_id refers to a user and card_number to a card.

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 and resource: 'Assign or unassign a user to/from a card.' It also explains the toggle behavior and frames the tool as managing card ownership and responsibilities, which clearly distinguishes it from the tag toggling, watching, pinning, and comment tools among the siblings.

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 gives explicit context for when to use it: 'Use this to manage card ownership and responsibilities.' It does not list exclusions or direct alternatives, but there is no obvious sibling that performs card assignment, and the toggle semantics and use case are clearly conveyed.

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