ncloud_attach_network_interface

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the operation is safe and repeatable. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as prerequisites, side effects, or state changes beyond the literal action, and does not mention anything about server/interface states.

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?

One concise sentence with no redundancy or filler; clearly front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter operation, the schema provides complete parameter descriptions, and annotations cover safety traits. However, the description omits usage context and behavioral nuances such as whether the network interface must be detached first or if the server must be in a specific state, leaving the overall context slightly incomplete.

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 fully covers both parameters with clear descriptions, and the description aligns with them. No additional parameter details are needed beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific action verb 'Attach' with a clear resource 'network interface' and target 'server instance', making it distinct from sibling operations like detach_network_interface, create_network_interface, and add_nic_acg. It fully identifies what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ncloud_detach_network_interface or ncloud_create_network_interface. The description simply states the operation without context on prerequisites, state requirements, or alternative actions.

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