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. It indicates this is a mutation tool ('update'), specifies a workflow requirement (fetch-modify-pass), and notes a constraint (at least one optional field must be provided). However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields during update.

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 concise. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage steps, states a constraint, and lists parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with essential information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage steps, constraints, and parameter semantics, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or response format. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more context would be beneficial.

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 explains all four parameters: folder_id (UUID of folder to update), name (new name, optional), description (new description, optional), and tsg_id (optional TSG ID with default). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles and types.

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 folder.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('folder'), but does not differentiate it from sibling update tools like scm_update_address or scm_update_security_rule, which have similar naming patterns but target different resources.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'Fetch the folder first, modify the returned object, then pass it to this tool.' It also specifies a prerequisite: 'At least one of name or description must be provided.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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