set_task_scope

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by stating that it affects the task scope for file comparison. It does not introduce contradictions and provides useful context beyond what annotations convey.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's 7 parameters and destructive annotation, the description adequately explains the core functionality and purpose. It could be more detailed about the clearing behavior or side effects, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand its role alongside sibling get_scope_state.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb (declare or clear), the resource (current task scope), and explains the purpose (so ThumbGate can compare affected files and diffs against the approved path set). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scope_state or set_branch_governance.

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 implies usage context by explaining why the tool is needed (file comparison). However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or when not to use it. It is clear enough for an agent to infer when to invoke it.

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