ncloud_attach_policy_to_group

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description only restates the operation without disclosing whether it replaces existing policies, requires specific permissions, or affects group members. No contradiction exists, but no extra context is provided.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without redundant words. It front-loads the action and is easily scannable.

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 simplicity (two required string parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness), the description is mostly complete. It clearly conveys the core function. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is additive or replaces existing policy attachments, which could be relevant for users. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (groupId and policyIdList) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 'Assign IAM policies to a group' clearly specifies the action (assign), the object (IAM policies), and the target (group). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ncloud_attach_policy_to_sub_account and ncloud_detach_policy_from_group by naming both the resource and the recipient.

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. It does not mention scenarios where attaching policies to a group is preferred over attaching to a sub-account, nor does it reference detach operations or any prerequisites. The tool name suggests usage, but the description itself lacks explicit usage context.

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