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 'Call the endpoint,' offering no information on whether this is a mutation (likely, given 'edit'), authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or response format. This leaves the agent with no understanding of the tool's behavior beyond the name hinting at an edit operation.

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?

The description is a single sentence, 'Call the cldkctl_org_edit endpoint,' which is concise but under-specified. It wastes space by repeating the tool name without adding value, failing to front-load useful information. While brief, it lacks structure and doesn't earn its place with meaningful content.

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 (a mutation tool for editing organizations with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral aspects, or return values, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand and invoke 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 parameters 'organization_id' and 'org_data' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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_org_edit endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It mentions the endpoint but doesn't specify the action (e.g., edit/update an organization) or the resource involved, making it vague. Compared to siblings like 'cldkctl_org_detail' or 'cldkctl_org_member_edit', it fails to distinguish its purpose 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after viewing org details), or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'cldkctl_org_detail' for viewing, 'cldkctl_org_member_edit' for member edits), the lack of differentiation is misleading for an agent trying to select the correct tool.

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