scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a removal action ('Remove the association'), implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to the snippet or folder afterward, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated; overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks critical context for a mutation tool, such as behavioral effects, error handling, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 provides basic semantics for all three parameters (snippet_id, folder_id, tsg_id), explaining what they represent and default behavior for tsg_id. However, it doesn't add details like UUID format, what TSG ID or named alias means, or validation rules, 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 verb ('Remove the association') and resource ('between a snippet and a folder'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'scm_associate_snippet_to_folder' by being the inverse operation, though this distinction isn't explicitly stated in the description itself.

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 or any prerequisites. While the sibling list includes 'scm_associate_snippet_to_folder' as a clear counterpart, the description doesn't mention it or provide context about when disassociation is appropriate.

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