Crear 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 only says 'creates', implying a mutation, but it does not disclose permissions required, reversibility, side effects on existing data, or the shape of the response. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the action and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, so it scores highly on conciseness.

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 5 parameters (2 required), nested objects, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'extra' and 'settings' are, how they should be structured, what the response looks like, or any constraints. An agent would lack essential context to call this correctly.

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 60% description coverage (name, idScope, settings have descriptions; extra and description do not). The tool description adds no parameter information whatsoever, and it does not clarify the structure of the nested objects (extra and settings) or their purpose. With moderate coverage and no added guidance, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Crea' / creates) and a clear resource ('scope/tenant hijo' / child scope/tenant) within another scope. It is unambiguous about the action, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_scope (if any) or save_scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_child_scopes, update_scope, or save_scope. It does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or when not to use it. There is no explicit or implied usage context beyond the basic action.

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