MCP cldkctl Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a destructive operation (implied by 'delete'), potential side effects (e.g., revoking permissions from users), authentication requirements, or error conditions. This leaves the agent unaware of critical risks and constraints.

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 but under-specified, not concise. It wastes space on tautology ('Call the... endpoint') without conveying useful information. A more efficient structure would front-load the action (e.g., 'Delete an organization role') and omit redundant phrasing.

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 and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what happens upon deletion, success/error responses, or dependencies. Given the complexity of role management and high risk of mutation, this leaves the agent ill-equipped to use the tool safely or effectively.

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 the single parameter 'role_id' documented as 'Role ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—no extra value is added, but no gap exists.

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_role_delete endpoint' is tautological—it restates the tool name without explaining what it does. While 'delete' in the name suggests deletion, the description fails to specify what resource is deleted (an organization role) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_org_role_edit' or 'cldkctl_org_role_detail'. It lacks a clear verb-resource statement.

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 (e.g., needing admin permissions), exclusions (e.g., not for personal roles), or related tools like 'cldkctl_org_role_list' for viewing roles first. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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