ncloud_add_nas_volume_access_control

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

The annotations only include destructiveHint: false, and the description adds only the 'NFS protocol' context. It does not disclose whether the operation is additive/overwriting, whether it requires special permissions, or what side effects it may have on existing access rules. With minimal annotation coverage, the description carries a heavier burden that it does not meet.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and resource. There is no unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter operation with full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on usage context and behavioral details (e.g., whether this appends to existing rules, whether it's idempotent). These gaps make it only minimally complete.

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%, with both parameters well-described in the schema ('NAS volume instance number' and 'List of server instance numbers to grant access'). The description text adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('server instance access control to a NAS volume'), and specifies the protocol (NFS). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'ncloud_set_nas_volume_access_control', so it falls short of a 5.

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 such as 'set_nas_volume_access_control' or 'remove_nas_volume_access_control'. It does not mention any preconditions, limitations, or context for when this operation is appropriate.

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