ncloud_drm_update_site

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, repeatable update. The description adds no behavioral context such as prerequisites (site must exist), effects on streaming, or validation of the FairPlay certificate. It does not contradict the annotations but provides little value beyond them.

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 sentence, nine words long, and front-loaded with the action verb. Every word is meaningful, with 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?

The description is too terse for a tool with a nested fairPlayCert object and three required fields. It fails to clarify that policyId and siteName are required even when only updating the certificate, which could mislead an agent. There is no output schema, and the description does not address return values or side effects, leaving important gaps despite schema coverage.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'policy binding, name, or FairPlay certificate' loosely maps to policyId, siteName, and fairPlayCert, adding some grouping but no additional semantics or clarity about required fields.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and clearly identifies the resource as 'DRM site', further enumerating the updatable aspects (policy binding, name, or FairPlay certificate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_drm_create_site, ncloud_drm_get_site, and ncloud_drm_enable_site.

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 an existing site via the 'Update' verb and lists what can be changed, but it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that policyId and siteName are required even when only updating the certificate, nor does it reference sibling tools to help an agent choose correctly.

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