sacloud-mcp

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 states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify if it's irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on attached resources), or includes confirmation steps. The mention of a JSON response hints at an outcome, but details like error handling or rate limits are absent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a single sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the inclusion of 'dict: 削除結果のJSONレスポンス' is somewhat redundant as it repeats 'JSONレスポンス' from the sentence above. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 the complexity of a deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical information such as the irreversible nature of deletion, potential dependencies (e.g., bridges must be empty), error scenarios, or response structure details. The tool's destructive nature requires more context than provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic meaning for both parameters: 'zone' is described as '削除対象のゾーン' (the target zone for deletion) and 'bridge_id' as 'ブリッジID' (bridge ID). However, it doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or guidance on how to obtain these values, leaving gaps despite the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'さくらのクラウドAPIでブリッジを削除します' (deletes a bridge using Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb ('削除します' - deletes) and resource ('ブリッジ' - bridge), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_bridge' and 'get_bridge_list'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'delete_router' beyond the resource type.

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., needing an existing bridge), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_bridge_list' for verification or 'create_bridge' for creation. The only implied usage is deletion, but no context is given.

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