MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about what 'update' entails - whether it's a mutation requiring permissions, what happens when invoked, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or any side effects. It doesn't even confirm this is a write operation beyond the 'update' in 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 the description is technically concise (one short sentence), it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_update_project endpoint' wastes its opportunity to convey meaningful information, making this an example of harmful brevity rather than effective conciseness.

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 (implied by 'update' in the name) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what it returns. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to understand and use this tool 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 both parameters (project_id and description) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds zero information about parameters beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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_update_project endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with 'Call the' and 'endpoint' added. It provides no information about what the tool actually does - no verb indicating action (e.g., 'update', 'modify') and no resource being acted upon beyond what's in the name. It fails to distinguish this from any other cldkctl_* tool.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous sibling tools (like cldkctl_project_detail, cldkctl_project_list, cldkctl_delete_project) that might be related, but the description offers no context about when this specific update operation is appropriate versus other project operations.

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