ncloud_gtm_update_policy_resource

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'within a policy' and 'specific resource group', but it does not disclose whether the update replaces the entire resource group or only merges changes, nor any other behavioral details 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, concise sentence that states the action and target without any redundant words or filler. Every word contributes to the 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 tool involves complex nested parameters (active/standby arrays) and no output schema, yet the description is extremely brief. It does not explain what a resource group is, how the update behaves (replace vs. modify), or any relationship to sibling tools like ncloud_gtm_get_policy_resources. The description is insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool in a real GTM policy context.

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 baseline is 3. The input schema provides terse descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Policy ID', 'Active resources'), and the tool description adds no further semantic meaning. The nested object fields (content, healthCheckRegionId, type) lack explanatory context, but the schema coverage requirement is met.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('specific resource group within a Global Traffic Manager policy'), clearly identifying the operation's target. It distinguishes from the sibling tool ncloud_gtm_update_policy_resources by indicating a singular resource group, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as first retrieving the policy or resource group details, nor any exclusion criteria (e.g., use ncloud_gtm_update_policy_resources for bulk updates).

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