conn_group_add_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the group's connections become accessible from the added directory, which is a key behavioral outcome. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., group must exist, directory path validity), potential errors, reversibility, or idempotency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and action, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 additive operation with complete schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on error conditions, return values, or side effects. It covers the core purpose but leaves room for more context.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mainly rephrasing 'directorio' as 'scope' and reinforcing the default behavior of omitting scope. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already fully documents parameters.

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: adds a directory (scope) to a group, and explains the functional consequence (connections become accessible from that directory). It distinguishes from the sibling conn_group_remove_scope by its additive nature.

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: use when you need to add a scope to a group. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is straightforward and the sibling existence is implicit. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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