ncloud_add_process_plugin

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether existing plugins are preserved, how duplicate names are handled, or if adding a wildcard affects monitoring behavior. The simple 'Add' action lacks important side-effect details.

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 composed of two concise sentences: one stating the action and target, the second explaining parameter usage. Every word adds value, and the key information is 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 simple mutation tool, the core functionality is covered, but the description lacks guidance on how the addition interacts with existing plugins and omits any mention of the optional 'type' parameter (which defaults to vpcserver). Additional context about idempotency or the effect of wildcards would make it more 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters, but the description adds valuable detail beyond the schema by noting that process names support wildcards (e.g., *abc*). This clarifies the intended format of the configList parameter, which the schema only describes as 'Process names to monitor'.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Add process monitoring plugin(s) to a server instance.' This action is distinct from sibling tools like remove_process_plugin and set_process_plugins, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for adding plugins to a server instance and notes that wildcards are allowed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the similar 'set_process_plugins' tool or specify when NOT to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity about the choice between additive and replacement operations.

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