AWS MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal context by specifying 'in the given region,' but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on attached instances), or error handling, offering only basic operational scope.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with nested parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description misses critical context like success criteria, error cases, or dependencies, 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and 'SecurityGroupArgs' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond implying region usage, failing to clarify parameter relationships (e.g., GroupId vs. GroupName) or DryRun implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers half the parameters adequately.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a security group'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (like delete-ami, delete-bucket, etc.), missing explicit differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., ensuring no dependencies), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'delete-security-group-rules' (not in siblings) or 'modify-security-group-rules', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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