MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a mutation operation (changing credentials), potential security implications, authentication requirements, or what happens upon success/failure. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the minimal action implied by the name.

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?

While technically concise (one sentence), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its single sentence on a tautological statement that doesn't help the agent understand the tool's purpose or usage. The structure provides no front-loaded value, failing to earn its place as a helpful description.

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 security-sensitive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral characteristics, or expected outcomes. The 100% schema coverage for parameters doesn't compensate for the lack of contextual information about this critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('old_password' and 'new_password') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Call the cldkctl_change_password endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It doesn't specify what the endpoint actually does (change a user's password) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_login' or 'cldkctl_token_regenerate'. While the verb 'call' implies invocation, it lacks specificity about the action's nature.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication state), appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'cldkctl_login' and 'cldkctl_token_regenerate', there's no indication of how this password change tool differs in purpose or application.

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