Set Task Scope

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

With destructiveHint=true already signaling this is a state-changing operation, the description adds context about the 'declare or clear' dual behavior and the consequence of enabling file/diff comparisons. It does not detail side effects like overwriting existing scopes or auth requirements, but the annotation lowers the bar.

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, front-loaded sentence that effectively communicates the core action and purpose without filler. It could have been slightly more structured, but it is efficient and clear.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too terse to be complete. It does not explain the lifecycle of a scope, what 'clear' does to existing approvals, or how the workflowContract and ttlMs affect behavior. The schema covers parameters, but the overall operational behavior is underspecified.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only explains the tool's overall purpose, which is acceptable since the schema fully documents each field.

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 action ('Declare or clear the current task scope') and its purpose ('so ThumbGate can compare affected files and diffs against the approved path set'). This goes beyond the title and distinguishes it from siblings 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 when to use it (when you need to set or clear a task scope) and explains the benefit. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as referencing get_scope_state for reading the current scope.

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