MCP cldkctl Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, as turning on a VM changes state), what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., billing implications), or error conditions (e.g., if VM is already on). This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 brief, it's under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_vm_turn_on endpoint' wastes space on redundant information (the endpoint name) without adding value. A truly concise description would front-load essential operational meaning, which this lacks.

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 severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'turn on' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools. Given the complexity of VM management and lack of structured data, this description fails to provide adequate context for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'vm_id' parameter clearly documented as 'ID of the VM to turn on'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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_vm_turn_on endpoint' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. While it implies turning on a VM, it lacks specificity about what 'turn on' means (e.g., power on, start, activate) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_turn_on_vm' or 'cldkctl_vm_reboot', leaving ambiguity about its unique function.

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 off), exclusions (e.g., not for rebooting), or related tools like 'cldkctl_vm_turn_off' or 'cldkctl_vm_reboot', leaving the agent with no context for selection among similar VM control operations.

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