ncloud_interrupt_server

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

Annotations are empty, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'interrupts' a server, which implies a disruptive action, but it does not explain what the interruption entails (e.g., forced shutdown, pause), whether it is reversible, or any side effects like data loss or service downtime. The vague term 'interrupt' could be misinterpreted without operational details.

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 that clearly states the action and purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is functional but minimal. It omits operational details such as what 'interrupt' does differently from 'stop' or 'reboot', and what the expected outcome or response is. However, the simple structure means the description is not severely incomplete.

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 fully describes the only parameter, serverInstanceNo, as 'Server instance number to interrupt,' achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'interrupt' with the resource 'server instance' and a clear purpose clause 'for diagnostics of abnormal behavior.' This distinguishes it from similar server lifecycle tools like stop, reboot, and terminate by indicating a diagnostic context, though it does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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 phrase 'for diagnostics of abnormal behavior' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a server is behaving abnormally and needs interruption for investigation. It does not list alternative tools or exclusions, but the diagnostic intent is sufficient to guide selection among sibling server management tools.

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