ncloud_hadoop_change_node_count

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no further behavioral context beyond restating the purpose. It does not disclose potential outcomes or side effects of node removal, such as data rebalancing or whether the operation is asynchronous.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every part is meaningful, directly stating the action, resource, and scope of the operation.

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 is relatively simple with full schema coverage and clear annotations, making the description minimally adequate. However, it lacks any note about operational aspects like async execution, prerequisites, or when not to use it, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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%, and all parameters are described with sufficient detail in the schema. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 (change worker node count) and resource (Cloud Hadoop cluster), with a parenthetical clarifying that this includes both adding and removing nodes. This distinguishes the tool from related operations like changing node specifications.

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 the tool is used for scaling worker nodes in a Hadoop cluster, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., changing node specs) or any exclusions. Clear context exists but no alternatives are mentioned.

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