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, what permissions are required, whether deletion is permanent, or what happens to associated resources. For a deletion tool, this lack of transparency is critical and misleading.

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 a tautological statement ('Call the... endpoint') instead of providing actionable details. The structure doesn't front-load useful 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameter expects, or what the outcome will be. The context demands much more detail for safe and effective use.

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 parameter 'vm_delete_data' documented as 'VM delete data'. The description adds no additional semantic information about this parameter's structure, required fields, or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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_vm endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It mentions 'delete_vm' in the name, but the description doesn't clarify that this tool deletes virtual machines or what resources it affects. Compared to siblings like 'cldkctl_vm_delete' or 'cldkctl_vm_list', it fails to distinguish its specific purpose.

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, when deletion is appropriate, or how it differs from similar tools like 'cldkctl_vm_delete' or 'cldkctl_delete_project'. There's no indication of context or exclusions for usage.

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