ncloud_create_launch_config

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint: false, leaving the description to disclose behavior. It explains the mutually-exclusive image source requirement, spec pairing rules (XEN/RHV vs KVM), optional minimum spec, and dryRun preview behavior — all beyond annotations. Does not discuss permissions or overwrite semantics, but strong for a create tool.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then constraints in order of importance. No wasted words; every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

With 10 interdependent parameters and minimal annotations, the description covers the critical selection and pairing rules and introduces dryRun for preview. It omits some workflow context (e.g., that the config is later attached to an ASG) and doesn't clarify whether launchConfigurationName is effectively required, but given no output schema, it's reasonably 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 has 100% coverage for all 10 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter logic: exactly one image source required, serverImageProductCode pairs with serverProductCode, serverImageNo pairs with serverSpecCode, and spec code optional for minimum spec. This goes beyond individual parameter descriptions and resolves ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Create a new launch configuration for Auto Scaling', which is a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling list/get/delete launch config tools. It also adds key constraints (image source selection) that make the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Clearly implies this is the tool for creating launch configurations. It provides how-to guidance (image source exclusivity, spec pairing, dryRun) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like create_asg. Still, given siblings are list/get/delete, context is clear.

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