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 it's destructive, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects. No information about permissions, rate limits, or error conditions is included, leaving significant behavioral 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the Args section clarifies parameter meanings. No redundant or unnecessary information is included.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens after deletion (confirmation, error handling), whether the operation is atomic, or what permissions are required. The parameter explanations help, but overall context for safe usage is inadequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: rule_id is 'UUID of the authentication rule to delete' and tsg_id is 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify UUID format or TSG alias examples.

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 ('authentication rule by UUID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact resource type (authentication rule) rather than a generic delete operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other delete tools like scm_delete_security_rule.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions a sibling tool scm_create_authentication_rule exists, it doesn't explain when deletion is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., rule must exist, no dependencies). No explicit when/when-not or alternative usage context is provided.

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