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 deletion operation (implying destructive action) but doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter section could be slightly more detailed given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical information about behavioral consequences, error handling, and operational context that would help an agent use it safely and effectively.

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 'app_id' is a 'UUID of the application to delete' and 'tsg_id' is an 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify what 'TSG' stands for or provide examples of valid UUID formats.

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 the resource ('a custom application object by UUID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (like scm_delete_address or scm_delete_application_filter), but the resource specificity is adequate.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing application), consequences of deletion, or what happens if the UUID doesn't exist. It simply states what the tool does without context.

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