ncloud_delete_cache_users

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

The description adds operational context beyond the annotations: it warns with '⚠️ Destructive,' and instructs 'Set confirm=true to execute,' which is a crucial behavioral requirement not in the annotations. It clarifies that deletion is of ACL users. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description reinforces the destructive nature and adds the confirmation mechanism. No contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear warning symbol, the action, the resource, and the key execution requirement. Every element is functional; there is zero waste.

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 tool is a destructive delete operation with no output schema. The description states the core action and confirmation requirement, but does not describe the immediate effect, return value, or whether the operation is asynchronous. Given the annotations and schema, the description is adequate but could benefit from mentioning that the deletion is permanent and affects authentication immediately, or what happens after successful deletion.

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 cloudCacheInstanceNo, userNameList, confirm, and regionCode with descriptions. The description references the confirm parameter and the userNameList concept, but does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Delete DB users (ACL) from a Cloud DB for Cache (Redis/Valkey) instance.' The verb is specific ('Delete'), the resource is clearly identified ('DB users (ACL)'), and the context (Cloud DB for Cache with Redis/Valkey) distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_cache_users, change_cache_users, and list_cache_users.

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 by stating the action and the need to 'Set confirm=true to execute.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when/when-not guidance. It does communicate that this is a destructive operation requiring explicit confirmation, but lacks exclusionary or alternative-tool references.

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