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 destructive behavior) but doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or what happens to associated resources. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 explaining parameters. It's front-loaded with the main action first. The parameter explanations are clear but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like confirmation requirements, error conditions, return values, or system impact. Given the complexity of a deletion tool in what appears to be a security configuration management system, more context 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 explains both parameters: 'profile_id' as 'UUID of the log forwarding profile to delete' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with default behavior. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain TSG ID format or alias resolution.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('log forwarding profile'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_create_log_forwarding_profile' by specifying deletion rather than creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations for different resource types.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies deletion of a specific profile, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the profile must exist), consequences, or when to choose deletion over other operations like updating or disabling.

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