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 this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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: one stating the purpose and another detailing parameters. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more structured.

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 insufficient. It lacks critical details like error handling, return values (e.g., success confirmation or job ID), dependencies, or safety warnings, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly.

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 profile_id as 'UUID of the DNS security profile to delete' and tsg_id as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't clarify what SCM_TSG_ID is or provide 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('DNS security profile by UUID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools (like scm_delete_address or scm_delete_application) beyond specifying the resource type, which is adequate but not exceptional.

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 profile), consequences of deletion, or relationships with other tools like scm_get_dns_security_profile or scm_create_dns_security_profile.

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