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 the action is 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. No information about rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the profile is in use is included.

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 two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The 'Args:' section is well-structured, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains parameters adequately but lacks critical behavioral context about the deletion operation's consequences, permissions required, error conditions, or what happens to dependent configurations.

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 clearly explains both parameters: 'profile_id' as 'UUID of the anti-spyware profile to delete' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain TSG ID semantics.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('an anti-spyware profile by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scm_create_anti_spyware_profile' and 'scm_get_anti_spyware_profile'. It provides precise verb+resource+identification method.

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 description implies deletion of a specific profile, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the profile must exist, be unused), consequences, or when to choose deletion over other operations. The sibling list includes many 'delete_' tools, but no differentiation is offered.

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