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 offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('Delete') but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether deletion is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. 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 concise with a clear header and bullet-pointed args. 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context like success/error responses, side effects, authentication needs, and detailed parameter guidance. The agent would struggle to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 but adds limited value. It explains 'tag_id' as 'UUID of the tag to delete' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias', but doesn't clarify what TSG means, where to find these IDs, or format requirements. For 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 ('a tag by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scm_get_tag' and 'scm_update_tag' by focusing on deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the description text.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., tag must exist), consequences (e.g., impact on associated resources), 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.