ncloud_nks_update_node_pool_subnet

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

The annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating 'update subnet'; it does not explain potential side effects like rolling node replacements, network interruptions, or how the update is applied. This is acceptable given the annotations but lacks richer context.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, earning top marks for conciseness.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the full parameter schema coverage, and the annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the core operation. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or provide additional operational context, but the combination of structured data and the concise description is reasonably complete.

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 all three parameters (clusterUuid, instanceNo, subnetNoList) documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level information, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action: 'Update subnet for a node pool in an NKS cluster'. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('node pool subnet' in an NKS cluster). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ncloud_nks_update_lb_subnet (load balancer subnet) and ncloud_nks_add_subnet (adding subnets) by focusing on the node pool subnet update.

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 implies the usage context (updating a node pool's subnet) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ncloud_nks_add_subnet or ncloud_nks_update_node_pool. There are no exclusions or mention of prerequisites like node pool status or subnet compatibility.

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