ncloud_nks_update_lb_subnet

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little context by specifying the target resource ('load balancer subnet') and cluster type ('NKS'), but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether the update replaces existing subnet settings, requires both public and private subnets, or triggers any side effects. It neither contradicts the annotations nor goes far beyond them.

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, focused sentence: 'Update load balancer subnet for an NKS cluster.' It contains no fluff, repetitions, or extraneous information. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and benign annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the action, resource, and scope, and the schema documents all parameters including required and optional fields. It does not explain return values or prerequisites, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward. The lack of guidance about optional parameter combinations or constraints (e.g., subnet must be in the same VPC) is a minor gap, but not critical for basic usage.

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 has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all three parameters: clusterUuid, lbPublicSubnetNo, and lbPrivateSubnetNo. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It implies that 'load balancer subnet' refers to the public/private subnet numbers, but the schema states this directly.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('load balancer subnet'), and a clear scope ('for an NKS cluster'). It distinguishes itself from sibling NKS subnet tools like 'update_node_pool_subnet' and from generic load balancer tools like 'set_lb_subnet' by naming both the resource and the cluster type.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention when updating a load balancer subnet would be necessary, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'ncloud_nks_update_node_pool_subnet' or 'ncloud_set_lb_subnet' for comparison.

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