scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects dependent configurations, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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. The two-sentence structure with parameter explanations is efficient, though the 'Args:' section formatting could be slightly cleaner. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context: what happens after deletion, error conditions, confirmation requirements, or system impact. The parameter explanations help but don't compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.

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 'edl_id' is the 'UUID of the EDL to delete' and 'tsg_id' is an 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, but doesn't fully cover format expectations (e.g., UUID format) or what TSG represents.

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 ('external dynamic list by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scm_create_external_dynamic_list' and 'scm_get_external_dynamic_list'. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing EDL), consequences of deletion, or when to choose deletion over other operations like updating. With many sibling tools available, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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