clarik_change_scope_guard

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It reveals one key trait: 'asks for confirmation, never hard blocks,' which indicates it is non-destructive and soft. However, it omits details like return value, potential side effects, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate outcome description) without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 2 simple parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description conveys the essential idea but fails to explain what 'confirmation' means (e.g., prompt vs. boolean), how the agent should interpret the result, or how this tool integrates into a workflow among many sibling tools. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on acceptable values for 'action' or provide examples. Thus, it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 specifies 'Check if a file is protected before editing,' which clearly indicates the verb (check) and resource (file protection status). It distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which are about file protection checking. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean or confirmation prompt), slightly reducing clarity.

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 phrase 'before editing' implies when to use: as a precautionary check. It also states 'never hard blocks,' clarifying that it only asks for confirmation. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternatives (e.g., from sibling tools) would be appropriate for different scenarios.

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