ncloud_change_mongodb_config_count

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as no mention of side effects, long-running operations, or constraints. It does not contradict annotations.

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, clear sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Change'. It is concise and effective with no unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with two fully described parameters and safety annotations, but the description omits any constraints on configServerCount (e.g., allowed values, minimums) or operational effects (e.g., whether the change causes downtime). While annotations help, the description alone is not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all implications.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (configServerCount and cloudMongoDbInstanceNo). The description adds no parameter details beyond baseline, so scoring is at the baseline of 3.

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), the resource (number of Config servers), and the scope (MongoDB Sharded Cluster instance). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like ncloud_change_mongodb_secondary_count and ncloud_change_mongodb_mongos_count by focusing on Config servers.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the function without any contextual direction.

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