ncloud_create_nat_gateway

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

The annotation only includes destructiveHint: false, which aligns with the description's 'Create' action (non-destructive). The description adds the Public/Private type support, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as whether the operation is synchronous, whether dependent resources (e.g., subnets) are automatically provisioned, or what response is returned. Since the annotation is minimal, the description carries some burden, but it provides only basic information.

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 front-loads the action and object, and then adds the type distinction. It contains zero waste and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is simple and the parameter schema is thorough, covering all required and optional inputs. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., NAT Gateway instance ID or asynchronous job status), which is a gap for a create operation. It also lacks usage guidelines, but overall it provides sufficient context for basic selection and invocation.

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%, where each parameter has a detailed description. The tool's description adds no parameter-specific information beyond 'Public (PBLIP) and Private (PRVT) types,' which is already reflected in the schema's subnetNo, privateIp, and publicIpInstanceNo descriptions. Thus, the description adds little value over the schema, keeping the score at the baseline 3.

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 identifies the action ('Create'), the resource ('NAT Gateway instance'), and the scope ('in a VPC'). It also distinguishes between Public (PBLIP) and Private (PRVT) types, which differentiates it from other NAT gateway sibling tools like list, get, set description, and delete.

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 usage for creating a NAT Gateway, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention prerequisites (e.g., VPC must exist, subnet type requirements). It does not reference when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the verb and resource type.

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