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 permissions are required, whether it's irreversible, or any side effects. The description is completely silent on critical behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for a tool that performs deletions.

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 but is under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space by merely restating the tool name without adding value. While it's brief, it fails to front-load useful information, making it inefficient and poorly structured for guiding an agent.

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 tool's complexity (a deletion operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a persistent volume is, the consequences of deletion, success/failure conditions, or return values. For a destructive tool in a rich sibling context, this description leaves critical gaps.

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 both parameters (project_id and name) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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_persistent_volume endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without clarifying what it actually does. It mentions 'delete' but doesn't specify what resource is being deleted or the context. While the name suggests deleting a persistent volume, the description fails to articulate this purpose clearly, making it vague and minimally informative.

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 like cldkctl_delete_pod, cldkctl_delete_project, and cldkctl_delete_vm, there's no indication of when this specific deletion tool is appropriate. It lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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