AWS MCP Server

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

Annotations provide critical behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal context beyond this, only mentioning the region parameter. It doesn't explain what 'revoke' entails operationally, potential side effects, or AWS-specific behaviors like eventual consistency. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that already conveys the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 destructive AWS operation with complex parameters (2 parameters, nested objects, 50% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information about required permissions, error conditions, return values, or how this tool fits into broader security group management workflows alongside sibling tools.

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 complex nested parameters like SecurityGroupArgs containing IpPermissions. The description only mentions 'region', ignoring all other parameters. It fails to explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., GroupId vs GroupName, DryRun usage) or provide context beyond the schema, leaving significant gaps in understanding parameter usage.

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 ('revoke') and resource ('security group egress'), specifying it occurs 'in the given region'. It distinguishes from 'revoke-security-group-ingress' by focusing on egress rules. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other AWS security group tools like 'modify-security-group-rules' or 'authorize-security-group-egress'.

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 like 'modify-security-group-rules' or 'delete-security-group'. The description mentions the region parameter but doesn't explain prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for revoking egress rules versus other security group operations.

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