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 the tool updates an existing rule, implying a mutation, but fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether updates are atomic or partial, error handling, or system impact. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior safely.

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 a parameter list, making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the parameter explanations are somewhat repetitive (e.g., 'New ... (optional)'), slightly reducing efficiency without harming 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?

For a mutation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error responses), usage guidelines, and output details, leaving the agent under-informed about critical operational aspects.

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?

Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully by listing all 13 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'New name (optional)', 'UUID of the QoS rule to update'). It clarifies optionality and provides a default for 'tsg_id', adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, which only shows types and titles.

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 as 'Update an existing QoS rule' with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('QoS rule'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_create_qos_rule' or 'scm_get_qos_rule' beyond the 'update' action, which prevents 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 like 'scm_create_qos_rule' for creation or 'scm_get_qos_rule' for retrieval. It mentions a default for 'tsg_id' but lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.

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