scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an address object but doesn't mention whether this is a mutation requiring permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action, which is insufficient for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by a critical constraint, and then a well-organized parameter list with brief explanations and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity (9 parameters, creation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like error handling, response format, or side effects. For a creation tool, this leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly without trial and error.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains the mutual exclusivity constraint ('Exactly one of ip_netmask, ip_range, ip_wildcard, or fqdn must be provided'), provides examples for each parameter (e.g., '10.0.0.0/8' for ip_netmask), clarifies optional vs. required parameters, and notes defaults (e.g., 'Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID' for tsg_id). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Create') and resource ('address object'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_create_address_group' or 'scm_update_address', which would require mentioning what makes an address object distinct from an address group or update operation.

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 implied usage through the 'Exactly one of...' constraint, which helps guide parameter selection, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scm_update_address' or 'scm_delete_address'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving gaps in contextual decision-making.

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