onedrive_set_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a mutation ('Restrict') but lacks details on whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or the scope of restriction (e.g., for the folder only or subfolders). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's side effects.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informativeness for conciseness, earning a balanced score.

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 has no parameters or output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to explain what 'restrict access' means, how to specify the folder, or the effect on existing permissions. Compared to sibling tools that have more descriptive names and contexts, this description is incomplete.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not add any parameter information because there are none to describe. However, it also does not explain that the tool requires no explicit arguments, which could be helpful. Baseline 3 for high coverage with no params is appropriate.

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 verb 'Restrict' and the resource 'OneDrive access to a folder', distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle file operations (e.g., onedrive_delete_file, onedrive_list_files). However, the term 'access' is vague and could be interpreted as permissions or sharing settings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for restricting access. Sibling tools exist for file management but not for permissions, yet the description does not clarify when to choose this tool.

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