ncloud_gtm_create_policy

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotation destructiveHint=false. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or what the response will contain. This is especially weak for a create operation without an output schema.

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 leads with the action and resource, followed by the key components. Every word is necessary and there is no 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?

Despite the schema being well-documented, the description does not explain the overall workflow or any relationship dependencies (e.g., that a policy belongs to a profile). It lacks guidance on how the nested monitor and resourceGroups structures fit together, and there is no output schema to clarify return values.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds a high-level summary that mentions 'load balancing, monitor, and resource groups', but this does little beyond what the schema already provides.

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'), the resource ('a new Global Traffic Manager policy'), and the key components ('load balancing, monitor, and resource groups'). This distinguishes it from related tools like ncloud_gtm_create_profile or ncloud_gtm_create_geo_cidr_map.

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 intended use is implied by the verb and resource, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ncloud_gtm_update_policy or ncloud_gtm_create_profile. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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