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 but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions required, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. It mentions a default for 'tsg_id', but this is minimal context 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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured Args section. It is appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters superficially but misses critical behavioral and usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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. It lists all 5 parameters with brief notes (e.g., 'optional', 'defaults to SCM_TSG_ID'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on formats (e.g., UUID format, color codes) or constraints, leaving gaps.

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 tag', making the purpose specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_create_tag' or 'scm_delete_tag' beyond the action, missing explicit contrast in scope or use cases.

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 such as 'scm_create_tag' for new tags or 'scm_delete_tag' for removal. The description lacks context on prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for updating tags.

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