scf_add_engagement_auditor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a write requiring admin role, and it explicitly limits the exposure to the engagement's frozen scope and queries, providing meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare action.

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 states the primary action first, then clarifies scope and role. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a simple grant operation: it covers the action, the target, the required role, and the scope limitation. Without an output schema, return values are not explained, but that is not required. Minor gaps like prerequisites or idempotency are not critical for a straightforward call.

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 already described (org_id, user_id, engagement_id). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 (grant read access), the resource (an engagement), and the scope (engagement-scoped, only that engagement's frozen scope and queries). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the grant operation versus listing or removing auditors.

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 (to grant engagement access) by contrasting with the scoped exposure, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. However, the context of sibling tools like scf_remove_engagement_auditor and scf_list_engagement_auditors makes the usage clear without needing explicit routing.

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