mcp-cloudron

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs validation for destructive operations and returns results with errors, warnings, and recommendations, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'blocking' errors versus warnings, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (validation for destructive ops) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output structure. However, it could improve by detailing the return format more explicitly (e.g., JSON structure) or error handling, but it's adequate for a validation tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the format of resourceId or details about operation types). Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Pre-flight validation') and resources ('destructive operations'), explicitly listing the three operation types. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on validation rather than execution (e.g., cloudron_uninstall_app).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before performing destructive operations (uninstall app, delete user, restore backup). It implies alternatives by referencing the actual operations, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools. The context is clear and actionable.

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