add_client_optional_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 of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining side effects, such as whether the scope is immediately effective, or if there are authorization requirements. No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the action itself.

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 that conveys the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point, requiring no additional structure for such a simple tool.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description completes the basic action but lacks context about the scope type (optional vs default), prerequisites, or success criteria. Considering the number of sibling tools and the need for differentiation, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the operation.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters, each with clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 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?

Description clearly states the action: adding an optional client scope to a client. It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_client_default_scope', which performs a similar action for default scopes. The word 'optional' provides some distinction but not explicit comparison.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_client_default_scope' or 'remove_client_optional_scope'. No context about prerequisites, such as whether the client or client scope must exist. The description lacks any usage context.

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