scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. It provides basic parameter information but lacks crucial behavioral context 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each parameter explanation is brief but informative. The formatting with 'Args:' section helps readability, though some sentences could be slightly more concise.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters adequately but lacks crucial information about permissions, side effects, error conditions, and what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this safely without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides valuable parameter semantics by explaining each parameter's purpose and optionality. It clarifies that group_id is required and other parameters are optional updates, and provides helpful context like 'UUID of the address group' and 'Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID' for tsg_id.

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 'existing address group', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scm_create_address_group' by specifying it's for updates, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'scm_update_address'.

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. With many sibling tools including other update operations (scm_update_address, scm_update_application, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific address group update is appropriate versus other update operations.

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