scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a creation operation (mutating/write), mentions the 'not both' constraint for static/dynamic_filter, and provides a default for tsg_id. However, it doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on conflicts.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, key constraint, then parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool. Minor improvement could be front-loading the 'not both' constraint more prominently, but overall it's efficient with zero wasted sentences.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context. It doesn't explain what gets returned, error conditions, or system impacts. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, it should provide more operational guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters. It clarifies that name must be unique, folder specifies location, static/dynamic_filter are mutually exclusive alternatives, description/tag are optional, and tsg_id has a default. It even provides a dynamic_filter example: "'tag1' and 'tag2'".

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 group', specifying it's for creating either static or dynamic address groups. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scm_create_address (individual addresses) and scm_update_address_group (updates rather than creates).

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Provide either static or dynamic_filter, not both.' This gives clear constraints on parameter usage. However, it doesn't specify when to choose static vs dynamic groups or mention alternatives like scm_update_address_group for modifications.

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