apikey_add_scoping

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavioral implications. It only says 'Add scope-based API key permissions' without revealing whether existing scopes are merged or overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, whether the API key must already exist, or what side effects occur in the project directory. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it could have used the available space more effectively by including parameter or usage context.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description needed to provide meaningful operational context. It explains neither the exact inputs, the effect on existing permissions, nor the expected result. An agent could infer the intent but would not be confident about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 50%, with the 'api_key' parameter left undocumented. The description mentions API keys generally but does not clarify the role of the 'api_key' parameter, the required 'directory' parameter, or how 'scope-based' permissions are expressed through the input schema. It therefore fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 a specific action ('Add'), the target resource ('API key permissions'), and the nature of the change ('scope-based'). This makes the basic purpose understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like apikey_add_rotation or apikey_generate_system, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific variant is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing API key or a project directory. The description does not help an agent decide between apikey_add_scoping, apikey_add_rotation, or other API key tools.

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