remove_scope

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool fails if locators are still assigned to the scope. It also implies the prerequisite of unassigning locators. However, it does not mention other side effects or the success behavior, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 long and contains no redundancy. It efficiently conveys purpose, failure behavior, and a mitigation step.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential aspects: what it does, when it fails, and what to do before calling it. It does not discuss successful outcomes but that is not critical for invocation.

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 description adds semantic meaning to the 'scope' and 'pageObject' parameters by indicating that scope is the item being removed and pageObject is the target from which it is removed. The 'project' parameter is already described in the schema. No further detail on formats or types is provided.

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: 'Remove a scope from a page object.' It identifies the resource (scope) and the container (page object), distinguishing it from similar tools like set_scope and set_method_scope.

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?

It explicitly describes a failure condition ('Fails if any locator on the same page object is still assigned to it') and provides a remediation path ('unassign with set_method_scope first'), offering concrete guidance on when and how to use the tool correctly.

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