ncloud_cdss_change_node_spec

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not disclose potential side effects like node restarts, downtime, or constraints on changing specs while the cluster is active. It simply restates the core function without enriching the safety profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently expresses the core purpose, though it is minimal; given the schema and annotations carry details, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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?

As a mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it doesn't state whether both node types can be changed simultaneously, how to obtain valid product codes, or what response to expect. The optional parameters are not explained, and the impact on the cluster (e.g., rolling update) is omitted, making it incomplete for an agent to safely invoke.

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 each parameter already documented (e.g., 'New broker node product code', 'Cluster instance number'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies; it neither clarifies node type relationships nor explains optionality.

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 ('Change server spec') and the target resource ('nodes in a CDSS cluster'), using a specific verb and resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_cdss_get_node_spec (read vs. change) and ncloud_ses_change_node_spec (different service).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to change server specs in a CDSS cluster) but provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention checking current specs via ncloud_cdss_get_node_spec or using product code lookup tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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