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. The description reveals nothing about this being a creation/mutation operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a tool that creates VMs (a significant infrastructure change), this lack of behavioral context is critically inadequate.

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 the description is technically concise (one sentence), it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_create_vm_yaml endpoint' wastes its opportunity to convey meaningful information, making it an example of poor conciseness through omission rather than good conciseness through precision.

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 complexity of VM creation, absence of annotations, lack of output schema, and minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool with significant infrastructure impact, this represents a severe contextual gap.

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 'vm_yaml_data' documented as 'VM YAML 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 score is 3 even without parameter details 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_vm_yaml endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify the action (creating a VM from YAML) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_create_vm' or 'cldkctl_edit_vm_yaml'. This provides minimal guidance to an agent about the tool's actual purpose.

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. With many sibling tools for VM and YAML operations (e.g., 'cldkctl_create_vm', 'cldkctl_edit_vm_yaml', 'cldkctl_vm_create'), there's no indication of when this specific YAML-based creation method is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be better suited.

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