ncloud_change_nas_snapshot_config

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific config operations (enable/disable, schedule) but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether existing snapshots are affected or if there are prerequisites. No contradiction with 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, tightly-written sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes parenthetical examples of what 'change config' entails, with no wasted 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and operation adequately. It could optionally mention that snapshotTime and snapshotFrequencyTypeCode are required when enabling, but the schema already states this, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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%, so all parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description briefly maps to the key params (enable/disable to isSnapshotConfiguration, schedule to snapshotTime and snapshotFrequencyTypeCode) but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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') with a clear resource ('snapshot configuration for a NAS volume') and lists concrete actions (enable/disable auto snapshot, set schedule). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_create_nas_snapshot or ncloud_get_nas_snapshot_config_history.

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 this tool (when modifying snapshot configuration) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions like 'use this instead of creating a snapshot' or 'do not use when snapshots are disabled'. Usage context is clear but not explicitly differentiated from siblings.

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