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 this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured parameter explanation. The 'Args' section is well-organized, though the title 'null' is wasted space. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters adequately but lacks critical behavioral context like error conditions, side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of updating a schedule object, more guidance is needed.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the 'Args' section: it clarifies that 'schedule_id' is a required UUID, 'name' and 'schedule_type' are optional fields for updates, and 'tsg_id' has a default value. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('an existing schedule object'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scm_create_schedule' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'scm_update_address' beyond the resource type.

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 schedule), exclusions, or compare with related tools like 'scm_get_schedule' for checking current values or 'scm_delete_schedule' for removal.

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