ncloud_nks_update_access_entry

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name. It does not explain whether kubernetesGroups are replaced or merged, whether the access entry must already exist, or what the response format will be. This is a minimal disclosure that adds no value beyond 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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant wording, making it appropriately concise for a simple update 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?

This is a simple update tool with 3 parameters, all documented in the schema, and safe/idempotent annotations. However, the description omits which fields can be updated (e.g., kubernetesGroups) and does not state any preconditions or effects. It is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the operation's behavior.

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%, with clear descriptions for clusterUuid, accessEntryNo, and kubernetesGroups. The description does not enrich the parameter meanings, but the schema already carries the burden, making this adequate per the baseline.

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 'Update' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an IAM access entry for an NKS cluster'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_access_entry, delete_access_entry, get_access_entry, and list_access_entries, which have different operations on the same resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_access_entry or delete_access_entry. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when an update is appropriate. The only signal is the verb 'Update', which is implicit at best.

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