scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and notes that 'members' parameter 'replaces existing members', which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the action, and the parameter descriptions provide necessary semantic context without redundancy. The formatting with 'Args:' section enhances readability.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it covers parameter semantics well, it lacks crucial behavioral context (permissions, side effects, error handling) and provides no information about return values or system state changes after execution.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate fully. It successfully explains all 5 parameters: identifies 'group_id' as UUID, clarifies optionality for 'name', 'members', 'tag', and 'tsg_id', specifies that 'members' replaces existing members, and provides default context for 'tsg_id'. 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 ('service group'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_create_service_group' (creation) and 'scm_delete_service_group' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'scm_update_*' tools that modify different resource types.

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., existing service group), when not to use it, or compare it to similar update tools for other resources. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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