create-client-scope

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it creates a client scope and hints at its role in token scopes, but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, or error behavior (e.g., duplicate name). This is a significant gap for a create operation.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. The parenthetical 'CRITICAL for managing token scopes' adds a bit of context but could be seen as slightly dramatic; still, it is concise and no words are wasted. It earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 create operation with 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It gives no information about return values, prerequisites (e.g., realm must exist), or special constraints. An agent would need to infer too much about how to correctly invoke it.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The description text adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify required fields, uniqueness constraints, or format expectations beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's action: 'Create a new client scope'. The verb 'create' and resource 'client scope' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update-client-scope and delete-client-scope by focusing on creation. The parenthetical adds relevant context about token scopes.

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. It does not mention that this is for new scopes, that update-client-scope should be used for modifications, or any prerequisites such as an existing realm. The sibling list exists but the description does not reference it.

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