scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens if the rule doesn't exist, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with 13 parameters and no 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a parameter list. Every sentence (and parameter line) earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details more fluidly, but overall it's efficient.

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 complexity (13 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers parameters superficially but lacks behavioral context, error handling, return values, and usage guidelines. For a tool that modifies security rules, this is inadequate to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 lists all 13 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'New name (optional)', 'New action (optional)'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, valid values (e.g., what 'action' can be), or format details, preventing a perfect score.

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: 'Update an existing decryption rule.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('decryption rule'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_create_decryption_rule' or 'scm_delete_decryption_rule' beyond the 'update' verb, which is why it doesn't reach 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 (e.g., needing an existing rule), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'scm_create_decryption_rule' or 'scm_delete_decryption_rule'. The only implied usage is updating rules, but this is too vague for effective decision-making.

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