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 fails to mention that this is a destructive deletion operation, what happens to the data volume (e.g., permanent removal, cleanup implications), any authentication or permission requirements, or potential side effects. The description offers no behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence that is overly concise to the point of being uninformative. It wastes space by merely restating the tool name without adding value. While brief, it fails to convey necessary information, making it ineffective rather than efficiently structured.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's impact, success conditions, error scenarios, or return values. Given the complexity and risk of data volume deletion, the description lacks essential context for safe and correct usage.

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 parameter descriptions in the input schema (project_id, namespace, name). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as format examples or interdependencies. 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_data_volume endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It mentions the endpoint but doesn't specify the action (deleting a data volume) or the resource involved. While the name suggests deletion, the description fails to articulate the purpose clearly.

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 differentiate from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_delete_pvc' or 'cldkctl_delete_persistent_volume', which might handle similar resources. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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