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 provides none. 'Call the... endpoint' is purely procedural and reveals nothing about the tool's behavior - whether it's destructive, what permissions are required, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated resources, or what the response looks like. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 technically concise with only 6 words, this description represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_delete_deployment endpoint' wastes its limited space on procedural language that adds no value. True conciseness would use those words to convey meaningful information about the tool's purpose or behavior.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does beyond its name, no behavioral context, no usage guidance, and no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata that would help an agent understand this tool's function and implications.

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?

The description provides no parameter information whatsoever. However, the schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (project_id, namespace, name) clearly documented in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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_deployment endpoint' is tautological - it restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While 'delete_deployment' suggests a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify what resource is being deleted or provide any meaningful context beyond the name itself. It fails to distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list like cldkctl_delete_pod or cldkctl_delete_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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous deletion tools in the sibling list (delete_pod, delete_vm, delete_service, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this specific deployment deletion tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or what consequences the deletion might have.

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