scope_add

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

The annotation idempotentHint is already provided, so the description does not need to repeat it. It adds value by listing valid target formats (IP, CIDR, domain, wildcard), which gives context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., whether duplicates are ignored, if the target is validated), but for a simple add operation this is acceptable.

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 short sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second provides parameter format examples. There is no redundant text, and the information is front-loaded and well-organized.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both purpose and parameter format. The idempotency behavior is already disclosed via annotations. It doesn't explain return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. The description is complete enough given the low complexity.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage for the 'target' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining acceptable formats and giving a CIDR example. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it lacks exhaustive validation rules. Given the single-parameter simplicity, this is strong compensation.

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 the specific verb 'Add' with the resource 'authorized scope', clearly stating the action. It also specifies 'a single target', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scope_set, scope_clear, and scope_remove. This is a precise and unambiguous 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 implies usage for adding one target at a time but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives such as scope_set for bulk replacement or scope_remove for removal. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it only meets the 'implied usage' criterion.

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