ncloud_hadoop_change_node_spec

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

The annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already disclose the safety profile, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the action itself; it doesn't mention potential impact on cluster availability, long-running nature, or return behavior. No contradiction with 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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Upgrade', and contains no filler. It communicates the core purpose and a key requirement efficiently.

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?

Given the simple parameter structure (5 parameters, 1 required, no nested objects) and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It could elaborate on operational expectations (e.g., whether the change is applied immediately, cluster downtime), but the schema and annotations already cover most of what an agent needs.

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 schema covers each parameter with a brief description (e.g., 'New edge node server type code'), but the tool description adds the important constraint that at least one node type must be specified, which is not encoded in the schema's required fields. This semantic goes beyond the schema and helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 ('Upgrade') and the resource ('node specs for Cloud Hadoop cluster'). It distinguishes this tool from similar node spec change tools for other services (e.g., ncloud_ses_change_node_spec, ncloud_cdss_change_node_spec) by explicitly mentioning Cloud Hadoop.

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 clear context that this tool is for upgrading node specs in a Cloud Hadoop cluster and includes a prerequisite ('at least one node type required'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like ncloud_hadoop_change_node_count or exclude scenarios where it should not be used.

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