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 a rule, implying a write operation, but fails to mention critical behavioral aspects such as required permissions, whether the rule is immediately active, potential side effects (e.g., impact on traffic), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with 14 parameters.

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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear 'Args:' section listing each parameter with brief explanations. There is minimal waste, though some sentences could be more concise (e.g., merging default explanations).

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 complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics thoroughly but misses behavioral context (e.g., creation effects, error responses) and output details. For a creation tool with many parameters, this leaves gaps that could hinder effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantic explanations for all 14 parameters, including defaults (e.g., 'default ['any']', 'default False'), optional status, and enumerations (e.g., action options 'decrypt', 'no-decrypt'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it lacks format examples or constraints.

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: 'Create a decryption policy rule.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('decryption policy rule'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'scm_create_decryption_profile' or 'scm_create_security_rule', which could cause confusion in selection.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a decryption profile first), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'scm_update_decryption_rule' or 'scm_delete_decryption_rule'. This absence leaves the agent without usage direction.

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