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 provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions that 'tag' parameter 'replaces existing tags', which is useful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Each parameter explanation is brief and focused. While the parameter list is lengthy, each entry earns its place by providing necessary semantic context not available in the schema.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks critical behavioral context about permissions, side effects, error handling, and response format. 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. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 9 parameters, including optionality notes and the important detail that 'tag' replaces existing tags. The default behavior for tsg_id is also documented. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Update' and resource 'address object', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scm_create_address and scm_delete_address by specifying 'existing address object', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like scm_update_address_group.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or when-not-to-use scenarios. It fails to differentiate from other update tools in the sibling list, leaving usage context implied at best.

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