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 only states the endpoint call, offering no information about permissions required, whether it's a mutation (likely yes, given 'edit'), potential side effects, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 and fails to convey useful information. It wastes the opportunity to explain the tool's purpose or usage, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one does not.

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 complexity of editing a deployment (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'edit' entails, the structure of deployment_data, expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 all parameters clearly documented in the input schema (project_id, namespace, name, deployment_data). The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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_deployment endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what the tool actually does. It lacks a specific verb and resource description, failing to clarify that this tool edits a Kubernetes deployment. While the name 'edit_deployment' hints at the action, the description adds no value beyond the name.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_create_deployment' or 'cldkctl_delete_deployment', leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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