ncloud_issue_private_certificate

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only says 'Issue' which implies a creation operation, but it does not explain consequences (e.g., costs, private key storage, validity period behavior, or whether the operation is irreversible). No output schema exists, and the description offers no post-issuance behavior.

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 two sentences and 20 words, front-loading the core purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word carries meaning; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

Despite having 16 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It fails to explain what the tool returns after issuance, what the agent should do with the result, or any important behavioral context such as the effect of registPrivateKey. For such a complex operation, this is insufficient.

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 schema fully documents all 16 parameters and their constraints. The description's mention of 'caTag' requirements adds nothing beyond the schema's own description. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 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 states the action ('Issue') and resource ('private SSL/TLS certificate from a Private CA'), with a specific reference to Certificate Manager (gov). It distinguishes from many sibling tools by specifying the private CA context, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like ncloud_pca_issue_end_cert.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires a caTag from the Private CA list', which gives some context, but it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. With multiple cert-related sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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