scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it's an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. The default value hint for tsg_id is useful but insufficient 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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. However, the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated rather than listed as bullet points, but overall it's appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens on success/failure, authentication needs, rate limits). The agent would struggle to use this tool safely without additional documentation or trial-and-error.

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—and it does by explaining all 6 parameters with clear semantics (e.g., 'UUID of the security zone to update', 'New name (optional)', 'Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide format examples or constraints beyond what's implied.

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 'existing security zone', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scm_create_security_zone' by specifying it updates existing zones rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools (e.g., 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 zone_id), conditions for use, or compare with similar update tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter descriptions alone.

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