scf_scope_framework

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive operation. The description adds the editor+ role requirement and clarifies the effect is creating scoped-control entries, but it does not disclose idempotency, duplicate handling, or whether existing scoped controls are affected. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences: one states the bulk-scope action plus role, the other states the outcome. Every word earns its place, and the key behavioral detail is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter write tool with full schema and annotations, the description provides the essential context: what gets scoped, what entries are created, and who is allowed to run it. It doesn't explain re-run behavior or output, but that is a minor gap since there is no output schema to reconcile.

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%, and both parameters already have descriptive text ('Organization UUID' and 'Framework slug to scope'). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond general context, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Bulk-scope'), names the resource ('every control mapped to a framework'), and states the concrete outcome ('Creates a scoped-control entry for each control'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like scf_update_scoped_control or scf_list_scoped_controls.

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 gives clear usage context: use this when you want to scope all controls in a framework into the organization at once, and it notes the editor+ permission requirement. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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