ncloud_create_block_storage

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint: false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the XEN/KVM difference in attachment behavior and the dryRun option, which previews without creating. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's side effects and constraints. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like pricing or asynchronous operations, leaving some gaps.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that are front-loaded with the main action. It packs essential information about required parameters, platform-specific behaviors, and a preview option without unnecessary verbosity. Each sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the most important contextual details: what the tool does, prerequisites, platform variations, and an alternative for attachment. It does not describe the response format, but for a creation tool this is less critical. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though mentioning the returned resource or operation status would improve it further.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. It does add useful guidance on how parameters relate to platform differences (e.g., serverInstanceNo for XEN, not available for KVM). However, the claim 'Requires zoneCode + blockStorageVolumeTypeCode + blockStorageSize' slightly conflicts with the schema, which states zoneCode is only required when serverInstanceNo is not provided. This minor inaccuracy prevents a higher score.

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 starts with 'Create a new block storage instance', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that for KVM, attachment must be done separately with ncloud_attach_block_storage, while for XEN, serverInstanceNo can be provided to attach at creation. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from related operations.

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 explicitly states the required parameters and platform-specific instructions. It tells the user that for XEN, serverInstanceNo should be provided to attach at creation, and for KVM, attachment cannot be done at creation and should use ncloud_attach_block_storage instead. It also recommends dryRun=true to preview, providing clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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