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 rules but doesn't mention whether this is a write operation requiring specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with 13 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter glossary. Each parameter explanation is concise and earns its place. However, the 'Args:' section could be more tightly integrated with the purpose statement for better front-loading.

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 complex mutation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and information about what the tool returns. Given the complexity, it should provide more about authentication rule behavior and system impact.

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?

Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully by providing detailed parameter semantics for all 13 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, data types (e.g., 'List of source zone names'), default values (e.g., "default ['any']"), and optional/required status. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose as 'Create an authentication policy rule' with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('authentication policy rule'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_create_security_rule' by specifying the rule type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other authentication-related tools like 'scm_update_authentication_rule' or 'scm_delete_authentication_rule'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing folders or profiles), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'scm_update_authentication_rule' or 'scm_delete_authentication_rule'. The only implied usage is for creating rules, but no contextual boundaries are defined.

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