scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't clarify if it's irreversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., breaking dependencies). The description lacks details on error handling, response format, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the flow 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like irreversibility, permissions needed, or what the response contains. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent without sufficient context to use it safely and effectively.

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 both parameters: 'profile_id' as the UUID to delete and 'tsg_id' as an optional TSG ID with a default. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying the purpose and default behavior of each parameter, though it doesn't detail 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 ('file blocking profile by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_delete_address' or 'scm_delete_security_rule' by specifying the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations beyond naming the resource.

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 profile), consequences (e.g., what happens to associated rules), or suggest alternatives like 'scm_get_file_blocking_profile' for verification. The only implicit usage hint is the need for a UUID, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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