scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a deletion but lacks critical behavioral details: it does not specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, if it has side effects (e.g., affecting associated rules), or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators). 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details. It uses minimal sentences without redundancy, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., confirmation prompts, error handling), usage guidelines, and output expectations. Given the complexity of deletion in a security context, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate 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. It explains both parameters: 'profile_id' as the UUID to delete and 'tsg_id' as optional with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic types, though it could elaborate on format (e.g., UUID structure) or TSG alias examples. With 2 parameters fully addressed, it meets most needs.

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 URL access profile by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scm_get_url_access_profile' (read) and 'scm_create_url_access_profile' (create). It precisely defines what the tool does 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the profile must exist), exclusions, or comparisons with other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'scm_delete_folder' or 'scm_delete_security_rule'), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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