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 the tool deletes but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting network traffic). The description lacks critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, and the parameter explanations are necessary. No wasted words, and the structure enhances readability.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), expected outcomes, error conditions, and how it fits into broader workflows. The parameter info is helpful but insufficient for safe usage.

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: 'rule_id' as 'UUID of the QoS rule to delete' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default value. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., UUID structure).

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 QoS rule by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scm_create_qos_rule' and 'scm_get_qos_rule'. It precisely defines what the tool does 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing QoS rule), consequences of deletion, or when to choose deletion over other operations like updating. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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