add_scope_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it omits the critical dry_run default behavior and whether duplicates are ignored or rejected. It does state that existing entries are preserved, which is useful non-destructive context, but the dry_run semantics are a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the necessary workflow condition, and the non-destructive guarantee. It is front-loaded and has no filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has five parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, so the description needs to supply more operational context. The missing dry_run default behavior and lack of parameter-level guidance make it incomplete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies the meaning of scope_id and entity_ids through the general 'activity or macro' and 'more entities' language. It does not explain host, scope, or dry_run parameters, leaving most parameter semantics to inference.

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 and resource: 'Allow an activity or macro to use more entities.' It clearly differentiates this from merely exposing an integration entity and gives workflow context ('it must also be added here before a button or page item can use it'). This is distinct enough from siblings like list_scope_entities and remove_scope_entities.

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 context for when to use this tool: after exposing an integration entity and before a button or page item can consume it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the workflow guidance is strong and prevents confusion with integration-level configuration.

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