Eliminar scope OAuth

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 states the deletion action but does not mention that it is destructive, irreversible, or requires specific permissions. It also does not describe any side effects or return behavior, leaving the agent with minimal insight beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, containing no fluff or irrelevant details. It could be slightly more informative, but it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does, but it does not specify expected return values, error conditions, or any prerequisites. For a deletion operation, this is a notable gap, but the tool is simple enough that the description is not severely lacking.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (id is described as 'ID del scope'), and the description only repeats the parameter ('por id') without adding any new constraints, format, or semantic nuance. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameter, and the description adds no extra value.

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 a specific action ('Elimina' = deletes), the resource ('scope OAuth'), and the parameter ('por id'). It distinguishes from the generic sibling 'delete_scope' by explicitly naming OAuth, so an agent can differentiate the two tools without ambiguity.

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. It does not mention that this is for OAuth scopes specifically versus general scopes, nor does it reference any sibling tools. The agent must infer the context from the name alone.

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