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

Annotations only say it is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive call; the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot convey — owner-only authorization, the business consequence of going public (others can book, you earn credits), and a policy change restricting PUBLIC to admins. It stops short of describing failure behavior or what a rejected PUBLIC attempt returns.

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 core guidance is front-loaded and the owner-only rule and service-request escalation are repeated in slightly different wording, adding length without new information. The trailing '| EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope' keyword line earns no place for an agent deciding how to call the tool.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the permission model, the effect of the change, and the escalation path. The one lingering ambiguity is that the parameter semantics imply an owner can pass a PUBLIC id while the prose says only admins can, leaving the agent to resolve the conflict from the prose.

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 description basically restates what the schema already says (empty = private, [PUBLIC_id] = public). It adds the policy nuance around PUBLIC but nothing new about scope_id or array format, 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: setting the visibility of one's OWN scope between private and publicly bookable, and explains what 'public' means (bookable by others, earns credits). However it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like ontouser_scope_assign_public or ontouser_scope_remove_public, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Explicitly says what to use it for (offer a scope, or make it private again) and, critically, what NOT to expect: since 2026-10-12 only an administrator can set PUBLIC, so owners wanting public must file ontouser_service_request with justification. It also clarifies that booking itself is a different tool. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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