SWMM-MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral details. It mentions the content should be '.inp file content', but lacks information on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on the server (e.g., overwrites, validation). This is inadequate 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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and parameter requirement. Every word adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic upload action and file type, but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for parameters: 'model_name' and 'content' are implied, with 'content' specified as 'full .inp file content'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it could detail 'model_name' usage (e.g., naming conventions).

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 action ('Uploads') and resource ('a new SWMM model to the server'), specifying it's for new models. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'duplicate_model' or 'prompt_model_upload', which might handle similar upload scenarios.

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. For example, it doesn't mention whether to use this for initial uploads versus updates, or how it relates to 'duplicate_model' or 'prompt_model_upload' in the sibling list, leaving usage context unclear.

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