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 effectively communicates critical traits: the action is irreversible (destructive) and has a prerequisite (no dependent configuration objects). This adds significant value beyond the basic schema, though it could mention error handling or confirmation steps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a warning and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (destructive deletion), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, warnings, and parameters well, but could benefit from mentioning typical response formats or error conditions to be fully comprehensive.

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 fully. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'folder_id' is explained as 'UUID of the folder to delete', and 'tsg_id' is detailed as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default value. This adds essential meaning not present in the schema.

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 folder by its UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scm_create_folder' or 'scm_update_folder'. It precisely identifies the operation without ambiguity.

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 clear context with a WARNING about irreversibility and a prerequisite to check for dependent objects, which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like 'scm_update_folder' or 'scm_disassociate_snippet_from_folder' for related operations.

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