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 destructive operation (regenerating typically invalidates the old token), what permissions are required, what the response contains, or any rate limits or side effects.

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), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence fails to convey meaningful information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately sized.

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 token regeneration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It should explain what regeneration entails, what happens to the old token, what the new token can be used for, and typical use cases, but provides none of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (token_id and expiration_days). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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_token_regenerate endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being regenerated (a token), what 'regenerate' means in this context, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_token_update'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differences from related tools like 'cldkctl_token_update' or authentication tools in the sibling list.

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