MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate that this is a destructive operation, doesn't mention permissions required, side effects, or what happens upon deletion (e.g., whether it's irreversible, affects dependent resources). The description is purely procedural without behavioral context.

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 concise with a single sentence, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its limited space on redundant phrasing ('call...endpoint') instead of conveying meaningful content 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'service' is in this context, what deletion entails, potential impacts, or expected outcomes. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for safe and correct usage is missing.

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 all three parameters (project_id, namespace, name) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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_service endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with 'call' and 'endpoint' added. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (deletes a service in a cloud/k8s environment) or what resource it operates on. While the name suggests deletion, the description fails to articulate the action and target 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include other delete operations (e.g., delete_pod, delete_deployment) and a create_service tool, the description offers no context on when deletion of a service is appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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