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 the tool updates an EDL, implying a mutation, but doesn't describe permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This leaves significant gaps 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, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed to improve clarity.

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 of updating an EDL, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or system impacts, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

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 brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'UUID of the EDL to update', 'New name (optional)'), adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on formats (e.g., what a 'list_type' dict contains) or constraints, only partially compensating for the coverage gap.

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 the resource 'existing external dynamic list', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scm_create_external_dynamic_list' by focusing on updates rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools (e.g., '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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing EDL, or compare it to other update tools in the sibling list. Usage is implied through the tool name and description but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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