Assign a default scope to a client

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

Annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with a mutation. However, no additional behavioral details are provided, such as what happens if the scope is already assigned. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence, but it lacks structure and additional informative elements. It is not verbose, but it could be more efficient by including key 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?

Given the simple two-parameter input and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits important details like idempotency, what happens on success, and potential error conditions. Annotations cover some behavioral traits, but the description should still communicate these.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters 'clientId' and 'scope'. The meaning of 'scope' is ambiguous (could be a scope ID or name). The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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: 'Add a default client scope to a client.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like keycloak_client_scope_unassign and keycloak_client_default_scopes_get. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes a 'default client 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to assign a optional scope or when to use keycloak_client_scope_unassign. The description lacks context for usage.

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