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 effectively communicates critical traits: the operation is destructive ('Delete'), irreversible ('WARNING: This is irreversible'), and has prerequisites ('Disassociate the snippet from all folders and devices before deleting'). This provides essential 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 and front-loaded, starting with the core action, followed by a warning, prerequisite, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, risks, prerequisites, and parameters. However, it lacks details on error conditions or response format, which could enhance completeness for a deletion tool.

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 meaningful semantics: snippet_id is explained as 'UUID of the snippet to delete', and tsg_id as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. This clarifies purpose and usage, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., UUID structure) for a higher score.

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 snippet by its UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scm_update_snippet or scm_get_snippet. It precisely defines 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?

The description provides clear context with a warning about irreversibility and a prerequisite to disassociate the snippet before deletion, which guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., scm_update_snippet for modification) or when not to use it, keeping it from a perfect score.

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