Set Task Scope

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the 'destructiveHint' annotation by explaining that the scope is used for diff comparison. However, it does not elaborate on the consequences of setting or clearing the scope (e.g., whether prior scopes are overwritten, what happens to protected paths, or how the workflowContract affects behavior). Given the annotation already flags destructiveness, the description provides marginal value.

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 immediately conveys the core action and purpose. Every word is necessary, there is no fluff, and the structure is front-loaded with the main verb. It is an example of efficient and effective communication.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested workflowContract, no output schema) and the need to manage task scopes for ThumbGate, the description is too brief. It does not explain what happens when the scope is set or cleared, how the 'localOnly' or 'clear' parameters affect behavior, or what the agent should expect after invocation. The lack of output schema increases the burden on the description, which it fails to meet.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, including nested objects. The tool description does not provide additional parameter-specific insights beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not enhance semantic understanding.

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 tool's purpose: to declare or clear a task scope for ThumbGate to compare files and diffs against approved paths. It uses specific verbs ('declare or clear') and resource ('task scope'), and the phrase 'compare affected files and diffs' 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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or scenarios where sibling tools like 'get_scope_state' or 'set_branch_governance' are more appropriate. The context of ThumbGate comparison is implied but not sufficient for an agent to make an informed choice.

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