ncloud_create_vpc_peering

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that this is a non-destructive operation. It adds the dryRun behavior, which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like the need for the peering to be accepted by the target VPC, or that cross-account peering requires additional parameters. This is moderate additional context beyond 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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and provides a practical tip in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not mention cross-account peering prerequisites (though the schema does) or the acceptance workflow involving accept_reject_vpc_peering. The schema covers parameter meanings, but the description leaves out operational context needed for correct invocation in more complex scenarios.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description only mentions dryRun, which is already described in the schema ('If true, returns a preview without actually creating the resource'), so it adds little semantic value beyond the structured field descriptions.

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: 'Create a new VPC Peering connection between two VPCs.' It uses a specific verb with a specific resource and differentiates from sibling tools like list_vpc_peerings, get_vpc_peering_detail, accept_reject_vpc_peering, etc.

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 gives a concrete usage tip for dryRun ('Use dryRun=true to preview without creating') but does not clarify when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as accept_reject_vpc_peering. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, so the context is only implied.

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