AWS MCP Server

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

Annotations provide critical behavioral hints (destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, readOnly=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. However, it doesn't contradict annotations - 'revoke' aligns with destructive operations, so no contradiction penalty.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place - 'revoke' (action), 'security group ingress' (resource), 'in the given region' (context).

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 security operation with complex nested parameters (SecurityGroupArgs), no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after revocation, error conditions, permissions required, or how to identify which rules to target. Annotations help but don't compensate for the minimal description.

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 2 parameters total. The description mentions 'region' and implies 'SecurityGroupArgs' through context, but adds no meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, required fields within SecurityGroupArgs, or how to specify which ingress rules to revoke.

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 ingress') with regional context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'revoke-security-group-egress' by specifying 'ingress', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other security group operations like 'modify-security-group-rules' or 'delete-security-group'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify-security-group-rules' or 'delete-security-group'. The description mentions 'in the given region' but provides no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for revoking ingress rules.

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