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 fails to do so. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., service downtime), rate limits, or response format. The term 'edit' implies mutation, but no details are given about the nature or impact of changes.

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 essential information efficiently. It wastes space on generic phrasing ('Call the... endpoint') without front-loading key details like purpose or usage. The structure doesn't prioritize clarity, making it ineffective despite brevity.

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 a service editing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter (service_data), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, output expectations, error handling, or provide context for the four required parameters. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 parameters documented in the input schema (project_id, namespace, name, service_data). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of 'service_data' or relationships between parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.

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_service endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It indicates an edit operation on a service but lacks specificity about what 'edit' entails (e.g., updating configuration, modifying properties) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_edit_deployment' or 'cldkctl_edit_pod'. The verb 'call' is generic and doesn't clarify the action beyond invoking an endpoint.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for Kubernetes service management), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'cldkctl_create_service' or 'cldkctl_delete_service'. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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