cachly-mcp-server

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 effectively communicates critical traits: the action is permanent, involves deprovisioning Kubernetes resources, removes all data, and is irreversible. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions that would be helpful for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and key details in just two sentences. Every word earns its place by conveying permanence, scope, and irreversibility without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient for an agent's decision-making.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering the irreversible nature and scope of deletion. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., impact on connected services) or success/error responses, given the high stakes of the operation.

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, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of 'instance_id' or why 'confirm' is required. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 ('permanently delete'), the resource ('a cache instance'), and the scope of destruction ('deprovisions the Kubernetes workload and removes all data'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cache_delete' by specifying it deletes an entire instance rather than just cache data.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('permanently delete a cache instance') and warns about its irreversible nature, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'cache_delete' for partial deletions. The 'confirm' parameter implies a safety mechanism but isn't framed as usage guidance.

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