ncloud_gtm_update_policy

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the update is partial (only provided fields are changed) or whether it replaces the entire policy configuration, which would be useful beyond the 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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, efficiently stating the tool's purpose.

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 schema is rich and comprehensively describes all parameters, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks context on scope boundaries (e.g., it does not clarify that this tool handles overall policy settings, not just resources or health checks), which is important given the numerous closely related sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all properties, so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline 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 identifies the action (update) and the resource (existing Global Traffic Manager policy). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from related sibling tools like ncloud_gtm_update_policy_resources or ncloud_gtm_update_policy_health_check, which also update aspects of a GTM policy.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ncloud_gtm_update_policy_resources or ncloud_gtm_update_policy_health_check. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing an existing policy ID, or clarify whether this is for general policy settings only.

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