scf_add_engagement_auditor

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

The description discloses that re-granting a revoked auditor reactivates the grant, a behavioral nuance not covered by annotations. It also clarifies that access is scoped to frozen scope and queries. Since annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the main action, and provides essential details without redundancy. Every clause adds information—the action, the scope, and the reactivation behavior—making it highly efficient.

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 grant operation with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, and a key edge case (re-granting). It does not explicitly state prerequisites like required admin permissions, but the 'write — admin role' hint implies this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description including how to obtain the UUID (e.g., from scf_list_organizations). The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: granting an existing user read access to one engagement. It specifies the resource (engagement) and the recipient (existing user), and distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_engagement_auditor. The phrase 'write — admin role' adds a slight ambiguity but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 explains the scope of access (frozen scope and queries only) and mentions the re-grant behavior for revoked auditors, which gives context on when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as scf_remove_engagement_auditor or scf_list_engagement_auditors, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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