delete_client_scope

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, destructive nature, authorization requirements, or idempotency. The word 'Delete' implies destruction, but no details are given.

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 overly minimal—only one sentence that repeats the tool name. While front-loaded, it lacks structure and omits crucial details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 destructive operation with no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the impact on other scopes, prerequisites, or success indicators. The tool is part of a complex system (Keycloak) and more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, which already describes 'Realm name' and 'Client scope ID'. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 with high coverage.

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 'Delete a client scope' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, providing no additional information beyond the name itself. It restates the verb and resource without adding clarity or distinguishing from siblings like 'delete_client_scope_protocol_mapper'.

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 other delete tools or prerequisites. The description lacks any context about required permissions, effects on related entities, or whether the operation is reversible.

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