Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it's destructive ('Permanently removes'), has prerequisites (abort deployment first), includes a confirmation flag, and mentions admin-only usage for user_id. It doesn't cover rate limits or error responses, but provides substantial operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with critical information (purpose, warning, prerequisite). The example and workflow sections are useful but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage.

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 high complexity (destructive operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, guidelines, behavioral context, and parameters. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or permission details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'confirm: Confirmation flag (must be True to proceed)' and 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)', adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or default behaviors for user_id.

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 specific action ('Delete the entire range') and specifies what gets removed ('all associated VMs, snapshots, and data'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_range_by_user' or 'abort_and_remove_range' by emphasizing complete destruction.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'If a deployment is in progress, abort it first with abort_range_deployment()' and a workflow is outlined, clearly indicating prerequisites and when to use this tool versus alternatives like abort_range_deployment.

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