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 fails to indicate that this is a mutation operation (updating a token), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the minimal implication of 'update' from the name.

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, the single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_token_update endpoint' is under-specified and fails to convey useful information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; this description wastes its opportunity to inform the agent.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes. The high parameter coverage in the schema does not compensate for the lack of purpose and usage 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%, with both parameters ('token_id' and 'name') clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters, such as format constraints or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the 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_update endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It provides no information about what the tool actually does (e.g., updating a token's name or other attributes), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_token_regenerate' or other token-related operations.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given the sibling list includes many token and authentication tools, this lack of differentiation is problematic.

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