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 zone, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., breaking associated rules), or returns confirmation. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 action. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the Args section could be integrated more smoothly. No wasted words, but minor structural improvements are possible.

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 a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions, side effects) and output details. For a delete operation, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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: zone_id as 'UUID of the security zone to delete' and tsg_id as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format (e.g., UUID version) or what 'SCM_TSG_ID' refers to.

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 zone by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., scm_delete_address, scm_delete_security_rule), which share the same pattern but target different resources.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the zone to exist), consequences (e.g., impact on dependent rules), or suggest related tools like scm_get_security_zone for verification. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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