ncloud_change_mongodb_secondary_count

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether the change causes downtime, how existing data is affected, or whether the operation is asynchronous. It simply restates the action without disclosing additional traits.

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 conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 simple mutation tool with complete schema descriptions and good annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks information about return values or operational impact (e.g., whether the instance goes through a rolling change), though such details are not strictly necessary given the straightforward action and schema coverage.

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 all four parameters documented (e.g., memberServerCount 'Number of member servers (2-7)', arbiterServerCount 'Number of arbiter servers (0-1)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Change') and resource ('number of Secondary (Member/Arbiter) servers in a MongoDB instance'), clearly conveying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'change_mongodb_mongos_count' and 'change_mongodb_shard_count' by focusing on secondary 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 does it mention any preconditions or use cases (e.g., scaling MongoDB secondaries). It is not misleading, but lacks any explicit context for tool selection.

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