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 'Update an application group' implying a mutation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The note that members 'replaces existing' is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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. The Args section is structured clearly, though the note about members replacing existing could be integrated more smoothly. No wasted sentences, but minor improvements in flow are possible.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage guidelines, and output information, leaving gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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 meaningful semantics for all 4 parameters: group_id (UUID to update), name (new name, optional), members (new list, optional, replaces existing), and tsg_id (optional TSG ID/alias with default). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format details (e.g., UUID pattern).

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 'application group', specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_create_application_group' and 'scm_delete_application_group' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools (e.g., 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing group_id), compare to other update tools in the sibling list, or specify use cases. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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