ncloud_change_fabric_cluster_servers

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover the core safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the operation replaces the entire server list, performs an incremental update, or has side effects. It essentially restates the tool's purpose without elaborating on consequences.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan. However, it could have used a second sentence to add usage or behavior context without losing its tight structure.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain whether the server list is replaced wholesale or merged, nor does it describe the return value or any constraints. This leaves the agent uncertain about critical operational semantics.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no additional parameter information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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') and the resource ('server instances assigned to a fabric cluster'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like change_fabric_cluster_name and change_fabric_cluster_description, which target different aspects of a fabric cluster.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. While the tool name and sibling context imply it is the appropriate tool for changing server assignments, the description itself lacks any usage direction.

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