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 action ('move') but doesn't explain whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive or reversible, what happens to rule order, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The parameter explanations are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks crucial context. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this leaves the agent with incomplete information about how to use it 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 provides clear semantic explanations for all 5 parameters: rule_id as a UUID, destination with its four options, folder context, destination_rule's conditional requirement, and tsg_id's default. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all edge cases like format details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Move a security rule to a different position in the rulebase.' It specifies the verb ('move'), resource ('security rule'), and scope ('rulebase'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_update_security_rule' or 'scm_create_security_rule', which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how this operation relates to other security rule management tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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