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 profile but fails to mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires authentication, has side effects, or returns confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary words, but the parameter explanations could be more detailed given the low schema coverage, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 information on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility), error handling, and return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI 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 explains 'profile_id' as 'UUID of the WildFire profile to delete' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify format constraints 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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a WildFire antivirus profile by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scm_create_wildfire_profile' and 'scm_get_wildfire_profile'. 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether deletion is irreversible or requires specific permissions. It mentions a default for 'tsg_id' but lacks context about prerequisites or consequences, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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