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 this is a creation tool, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are immediate or require a commit, error handling, or side effects. The example for 'action' is helpful but insufficient for comprehensive behavioral understanding.

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 brief purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Each parameter explanation is concise and informative. While slightly lengthy due to 14 parameters, every sentence earns its place by clarifying semantics, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 does a good job on parameters but lacks broader context. It doesn't explain the tool's role in a larger workflow (e.g., commit requirements), error conditions, or return values. For a creation tool with many parameters, this leaves gaps in operational understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed parameter explanations, including defaults (e.g., 'any' for source_zone), optional vs. required status, format examples (e.g., action dict), and contextual meanings (e.g., rulebase options 'pre' or 'post'). This adds significant 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 verb 'Create' and resource 'QoS policy rule', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'scm_update_qos_rule' or 'scm_delete_qos_rule' by its creation function, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other QoS-related tools beyond the naming pattern.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scm_update_qos_rule' or other rule creation tools (e.g., security rules). The description lists parameters but offers no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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