scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the outcome ('snippet's configuration is applied to firewalls'), implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the second sentence could be integrated more seamlessly, and the overall length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It explains parameters well but lacks critical behavioral details like success/failure responses, idempotency, or system impact, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: snippet_id and folder_id as UUIDs, and tsg_id as optional with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format constraints or examples.

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 verb 'associate' and the resources 'snippet' and 'folder', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'scm_disassociate_snippet_from_folder', which is a closely related operation, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 when to choose association over other snippet or folder operations. It mentions the effect ('snippet's configuration is applied to firewalls in that folder') but does not specify prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual usage scenarios.

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