ncloud_nks_upgrade_cluster

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. 'Uses PATCH with query parameters' is an implementation detail, but it does not disclose behavioral impacts such as potential downtime, rolling upgrade behavior, irreversibility, or required cluster state. This is a mutation operation without side-effect disclosure.

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 only two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a single technical note about the HTTP method, making it appropriately concise.

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 cluster upgrade operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no supplementary context, the description is critically thin. It does not explain what happens during the upgrade, how to monitor progress, whether the upgrade is rolling or disruptive, or any version compatibility checks needed. This leaves the agent under-informed for a high-impact operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, meaning it does not enhance the agent's understanding of maxSurge, maxUnavailable, or version constraints.

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 (upgrade), the resource (NKS cluster), and the specific attribute (Kubernetes version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_nks_upgrade_node_pool by specifying 'cluster'.

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 usage for cluster-level Kubernetes upgrades, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ncloud_nks_upgrade_node_pool. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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