scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), what the response contains, or any rate limits. It only documents parameter defaults, which is insufficient 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 well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by detailed parameter documentation. While lengthy due to many parameters, every sentence serves a purpose in explaining parameter semantics. It could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information, but the parameter documentation is efficiently organized.

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 mutation tool with 18 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides excellent parameter semantics but lacks critical behavioral context. The agent knows what parameters to provide but not what to expect in return, what permissions are needed, or how the system will behave. This creates significant gaps despite the thorough parameter documentation.

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 and 18 parameters, the description provides comprehensive semantic information for all parameters. It explains what each parameter represents (e.g., 'risk: Risk level 1-5 (1=low, 5=critical)'), provides examples (e.g., 'category: Application category (e.g. 'business-systems', 'collaboration')'), and indicates optionality and defaults. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 the resource 'custom application object', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_create_application_group' or 'scm_create_application_filter', which would require more context about what distinguishes a 'custom application object' from other application-related entities.

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. With many sibling tools for creating different objects (e.g., scm_create_application_group, scm_create_application_filter), there's no indication of when this specific creation tool is appropriate, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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