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 whether this is a read or write operation (though 'edit' implies mutation), what permissions are required, whether changes are destructive or reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation 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 (one sentence), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its single sentence on a tautological statement that doesn't help the agent understand the tool's purpose or usage. The structure provides no front-loaded value.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter (crd_data), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'edit' means operationally, what format crd_data should be in, what happens after editing, or any error conditions. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for safe tool invocation.

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, name, crd_data) 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_edit_crd endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It mentions 'edit_crd' which suggests editing a Custom Resource Definition, but doesn't specify what 'edit' entails (e.g., updating fields, patching, replacing). Compared to siblings like 'cldkctl_create_crd' and 'cldkctl_delete_crd', it doesn't clearly differentiate the specific edit operation.

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's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing CRD), when editing is appropriate versus creating/deleting, or how it differs from similar tools like 'cldkctl_edit_resource_v1'. The agent receives no contextual usage information.

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