Kratos-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete data' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether this is irreversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to related data. The GDPR reference adds some context but lacks operational details needed for safe use.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete data') followed by the compliance context. Every word earns its place, 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 destructive GDPR deletion tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does operationally, what data gets deleted, whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The GDPR reference provides legal context but not operational completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description's GDPR context gives additional meaning to the parameters collectively, justifying a score of 4.

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 'Delete data (GDPR right to erasure)' clearly indicates a deletion action and specifies GDPR compliance context, which is helpful. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion-related tools like 'memory_forget' or 'security_retention_apply' in the sibling list, nor does it specify what kind of data is deleted beyond the GDPR reference.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning GDPR context, implying usage for compliance-related data deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory_forget' or 'security_retention_apply', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is too vague for effective tool selection.

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