MCP cldkctl Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation (though 'create' implies mutation), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the minimal endpoint call statement.

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 ('Call the cldkctl_create_service endpoint') but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While it's technically a single sentence with no wasted words, it fails to provide necessary context that would help an AI agent. The structure is front-loaded but incomplete.

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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'service' is in this context, what the expected input format should be, what happens after creation, or any error conditions. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 the single parameter 'service_data' documented as 'Service data'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information 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_create_service endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It indicates the tool calls an endpoint but doesn't specify what 'create_service' actually does or what resource it creates. While it includes a verb ('Call'), the purpose remains vague compared to sibling tools like 'cldkctl_create_deployment' or 'cldkctl_create_vm'.

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, context, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_edit_service' or 'cldkctl_get_service'. There's no indication of when this creation operation is appropriate versus other service-related tools.

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