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 states the tool deletes a security rule, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to dependent configurations. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent 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 with a clear main statement followed by parameter details. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more polished for 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, success/error responses, or integration with sibling tools. For a deletion tool in a security context, this is inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'rule_id' as 'UUID of the security rule to delete' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default, which clarifies purpose beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't cover format details (e.g., UUID structure) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('security rule by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scm_get_security_rule' or 'scm_update_security_rule' by focusing on deletion, though it doesn't explicitly compare to 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule), consequences of deletion, or how it relates to other tools like 'scm_list_security_rules' for selection. The only implied usage is from the parameter descriptions, which is insufficient.

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