AWS MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it's an authorization action for security group ingress, implying it modifies network access rules, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral details like permission requirements, potential side effects on existing rules, or rate limits, leaving gaps despite annotations.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action and resource. It's appropriately front-loaded and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complex AWS security tool with nested parameters, no output schema, and partial schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, authentication needs, or how it fits with sibling tools like 'revoke-security-group-ingress', leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 50% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (one complex nested object), the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a 'region' parameter. It doesn't explain the structure or purpose of 'SecurityGroupArgs', key fields like 'CidrIp' or 'GroupName', or how they interact, failing to compensate for the schema's partial 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 clearly states the action ('Authorize') and resource ('security group ingress') with regional context ('in the given region'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'authorize-security-group-egress' or explain what 'ingress' specifically means in AWS context, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like 'create-security-group', 'modify-security-group-rules', or its sibling 'authorize-security-group-egress'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria, offering minimal usage direction.

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