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 the action is a deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, or what happens to associated rules or configurations. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief and directly relevant. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly rather than 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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens on success/failure, error conditions, or system impact. Given the complexity of a deletion operation in what appears to be a security configuration management system, more behavioral and outcome information is needed.

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 provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'profile_id' is explained as 'UUID of the decryption profile to delete', and 'tsg_id' as '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 a TSG is 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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a decryption profile by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scm_create_decryption_profile' and 'scm_get_decryption_profile' which perform different operations on the same resource type. It precisely defines the tool's function without redundancy.

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 it's clear this deletes a decryption profile, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the profile must be unused), consequences, or what to do if deletion fails. The description lacks context about usage scenarios or exclusions.

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