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 offers none. It doesn't indicate that this is a destructive operation, mention permission requirements, warn about irreversible consequences, describe what happens to associated resources, or specify any rate limits or error conditions. For a deletion tool, this lack of transparency is critical.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core instruction and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While under-specified in content, it achieves perfect conciseness for its limited scope.

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 completely inadequate. It fails to address critical context such as what deletion entails, whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, what happens to dependent resources, or what the response contains. The minimal description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'project_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no 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_delete_project endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It does specify the verb 'call' and resource 'endpoint', but fails to clearly state what the tool actually does (delete a project) or differentiate it from similar deletion tools like cldkctl_delete_vm or cldkctl_delete_deployment.

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. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., cldkctl_delete_vm, cldkctl_delete_deployment, cldkctl_check_before_delete_project), but the description offers no context about prerequisites, when this specific project deletion is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other deletion operations.

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