ncloud_drm_create_site

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint: false, and the description adds that the tool 'binds a DRM policy' and 'optionally registers a FairPlay certificate', which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., whether the policy must exist), or what happens on failure. Given the sparse annotations, the description partially carries the burden but could be more transparent about the operation's effects.

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 efficiently structured sentence: 'Create a new DRM site (binds a DRM policy; optionally registers a FairPlay certificate)'. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No unnecessary content.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and only the destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the core action but lacks details such as expected response, prerequisites for the policy or certificate, and any special constraints beyond what the schema states. It is adequate for a simple create operation but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%: policyId, siteName, and fairPlayCert each have descriptions. The description adds minimal high-level context by linking policyId to 'binds a DRM policy' and fairPlayCert to 'optionally registers', but this does not go beyond what the schema already implies (fairPlayCert is not required). Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 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 'Create a new DRM site', a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_drm_update_site, ncloud_drm_enable_site, and ncloud_drm_disable_site. The parenthetical adds concrete detail about binding a DRM policy and optionally registering a FairPlay certificate, which further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 this is for creating new sites, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the update/enable/disable alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. The purpose is clear from the name, but usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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