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. It states this is a deletion operation, which implies it's destructive, but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, affects dependent resources, or has any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious destructive nature.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter documentation could be more integrated rather than appearing as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like permanence, dependencies, error conditions, or what happens upon successful deletion. The description should provide more context given the tool's destructive nature.

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. It explains that 'group_id' is the 'UUID of the address group to delete' and 'tsg_id' is an 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain what TSG represents or how aliases work.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('address group by UUID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a deletion operation among many sibling tools that include create, update, get, and list operations for address groups and other resources.

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. While the sibling tools include 'scm_delete_address' and 'scm_update_address_group', the description doesn't indicate whether deletion is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or should be used with caution compared to other operations.

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