MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Call the endpoint', offering no information about the destructive nature (implied by 'delete'), authentication needs, side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single vague sentence that under-specifies rather than being concise. It wastes space by restating the tool name without adding value. A more helpful description would use its brevity to clarify purpose or usage.

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 a deletion operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral implications, or return values, leaving critical gaps for agent invocation.

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 clear descriptions for 'project_id' and 'name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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_delete_crd endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It mentions 'delete_crd' in the name, suggesting deletion of a CRD, but the description fails to specify the verb ('delete') and resource ('CRD') clearly. Compared to siblings like 'cldkctl_get_crd' or 'cldkctl_create_crd', it doesn't distinguish itself beyond the name.

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, conditions for use, or differences from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_delete_resource_v1' or 'cldkctl_delete_project'. This leaves the agent with no context for selection.

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