ncloud_change_server_spec

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 the precondition that the server must be stopped, which is useful context, but it doesn't detail side effects like restart requirements or response behavior, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that includes the action, object, and key condition without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states the operation, the precondition, and is supported by schema and annotations. It stops short of explaining what happens after the change (e.g., whether the server needs to be restarted), but given the simplicity and annotations, it is adequate.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (serverInstanceNo and serverProductCode), covering 100% of the schema. The description clarifies that 'product code' refers to the server spec, slightly adding meaning, but the schema descriptions are sufficient, so baseline 3 is warranted.

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 target ('server spec'), and an important precondition ('stopped server instance'), making it distinct from sibling tools that list specs or manage servers. The parenthetical '(product code)' adds technical precision.

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 specifies that the server must be stopped, providing a clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for running servers), so there's room for more explicit exclusion guidance.

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