set_write_scopes

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe repeated use with no destructive side effects. The description adds context by grouping scopes by risk level and noting that an empty array sets fully read-only, which clarifies behavior beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently state the action, list scopes with risk levels, and provide a usage principle. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple configuration tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, which scopes are available, and how to achieve read-only mode. It is missing a note on return values, but the simplicity mitigates this gap.

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 the parameter fully (100%), but the description adds value by categorizing scopes by risk and explaining the effect of an empty array. This helps the agent choose appropriate values beyond the raw enum.

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 enables or disables write permissions for specific categories, and it lists categories grouped by risk. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like set_read_only_mode.

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 advises using the tool to grant minimum permissions, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to alternatives like set_read_only_mode, though the risk categorization aids in selecting scopes.

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