scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks details on behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting dependent rules), or returns confirmation. This is inadequate 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the second sentence could be slightly more polished (e.g., clarifying 'Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID' as an environment variable).

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover critical aspects like success/error responses, idempotency, or safety warnings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'schedule_id' as the UUID to delete and 'tsg_id' as optional with a default. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic types, though it doesn't specify 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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a schedule object by UUID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'scm_create_schedule' or 'scm_update_schedule'. 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the schedule must exist or be unused), consequences, or comparisons to other deletion tools in the sibling list.

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