Remove a default scope from a client

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

Annotations indicate destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds crucial detail: the confirmation gating, that subsequent calls after removal report 'Not removed', and the return message format. No contradiction with 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?

Description is a single paragraph of 5 sentences, packing necessary information without redundancy. It is efficient, though slightly verbose for a concise tool description. Could benefit from structured bullets but remains 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?

Covers main action, prerequisite, behavioral details, and return messages. Lacks explicit error handling beyond return messages (e.g., client not found), but given the schema validation and the description, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description enriches understanding by explaining the confirm parameter's default (false) and that scope should match a scope from the get tool. This adds 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 'Removes a default client scope from a client' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool keycloak_client_scope_assign (implicitly by mentioning the inverse operation) and provides context that it is destructive and requires confirmation.

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?

Explicitly advises using keycloak_client_default_scopes_get first to see current assignments. Also describes the behavior when confirm is false (does nothing) and the non-idempotent nature, providing clear guidance on tool usage.

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