cloudwright-mcp

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and delivers comprehensive behavioral disclosure. It explains the destructive nature ('Destructive: the session's conversation history and any uncommitted spec are lost'), clarifies there's no undo, describes the implementation mechanism ('Removes the session file from the session store'), and specifies what doesn't happen ('No LLM, no network').

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, return values, destructive warning, usage guidelines, and implementation behavior. Each sentence adds essential information with zero wasted content, and critical warnings are front-loaded.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what gets destroyed, error conditions, implementation details, and limitations. The agent has all necessary information to use this tool correctly and understand its 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the error behavior when the session doesn't exist ('returns `{'error': ...}` if the session did not exist'), which complements the schema's parameter description. However, it doesn't provide additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema.

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 specific action ('Delete a conversation session') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'chat_create_session' and 'chat_list_sessions' by focusing on removal rather than creation or listing. It explicitly identifies the resource being acted upon.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Clean-up after a completed design, or abandoning a dead-end conversation') and clarifies what it does NOT affect ('Does not affect any deployed infrastructure — cloudwright never deploys anything'), effectively distinguishing it from infrastructure-related tools in the sibling list.

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