scm-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Delete') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related resources), or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter explanations more seamlessly.

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 of a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as behavioral implications (e.g., irreversibility), error handling, or return values, which are essential for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 adds meaning by explaining that 'group_id' is a 'UUID of the application group to delete' and 'tsg_id' is an 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't fully detail parameter constraints or usage examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('an application group by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_delete_application' or 'scm_delete_address_group' by specifying the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the text.

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 siblings include other delete operations (e.g., 'scm_delete_application'), the description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, such as dependencies or permissions needed for deletion.

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