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 but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. The mention that 'labels' replaces existing labels is useful but insufficient 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a parameter list. Each sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., combining optional notes).

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 partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth needs) and output details. Given the complexity, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 fully by documenting all 5 parameters with clear semantics: 'snippet_id' as UUID, optional fields for 'name', 'description', and 'labels' (with the crucial note that it replaces existing labels), and 'tsg_id' with its default. This adds significant value 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 snippet's metadata'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_update_tag' or 'scm_update_address', which follow the same pattern for 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., snippet must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to tools like 'scm_create_snippet' or 'scm_delete_snippet', leaving usage context implied.

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