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. It fails to mention that this is a destructive operation, whether it requires specific permissions, if data is permanently lost, or what the response looks like. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate, as the agent cannot assess risks or outcomes.

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 extremely concise ('Call the cldkctl_vm_delete endpoint'), but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential context that would help an agent use the tool effectively. It's not appropriately sized for a destructive operation with no annotations.

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 that this is a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, consequences, usage context, or what to expect after invocation. The agent would be operating blindly with potentially severe consequences.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'vm_id' clearly documented as 'ID of the VM to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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_vm_delete endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added value. It mentions 'delete' but doesn't specify what resource is being deleted (VM) or clarify the action beyond the endpoint name. While it implies deletion, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from similar tools like 'cldkctl_delete_vm' or 'cldkctl_vm_turn_off' in the sibling list.

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 (e.g., VM must be stopped), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose this over other deletion-related tools like 'cldkctl_delete_vm' or 'cldkctl_delete_project'. This leaves the agent with no context for appropriate tool selection.

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