Restrict a catalog item's availability by attaching a user criteria record. Assign the criteria directly to control access.
Attach a user criteria to a catalog item as available-for (sc_cat_item_user_criteria_mtom). Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| catalog_item | Yes | sys_id of the catalog item (sc_cat_item) | |
| user_criteria | Yes | sys_id of the user_criteria record |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the table name and the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, going beyond annotations. It does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new relation or updates), but the basic mutating nature is clear.
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?
A single concise sentence that leads with the action, names the resources, and includes a critical prerequisite. No wasted words.
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?
The description explains the action and a requirement, but omits what happens on success (e.g., return value) and whether the operation is additive or replaces existing associations. Given no output schema, these details are missing.
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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') and names the exact resources ('user criteria to a catalog item') plus the underlying table (sc_cat_item_user_criteria_mtom). It clearly distinguishes from creating a new criteria (create_user_criteria) and other catalog operations.
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?
It explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is useful guidance. It doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the tool's specificity makes the use case unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.