ncloud_pca_create_ca

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint: false, which the description does not leverage or contradict. The description adds no behavioral context such as side effects, prerequisites, quotas, or state changes after creation. Since annotations are minimal, the description carries the burden and fails to disclose meaningful behavioral traits.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Requires alias, keyType, period, and x509Parameters') is redundant with the schema's required fields and introduces an erroneous terminology. It does not earn its place and detracts from 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?

For a complex tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention required vs. optional fields, dependencies (e.g., issuerTag for PRIVATE_SUB), return values, or likely failure modes. An agent would need to rely entirely on the schema, which is insufficient for correct invocation in nuanced scenarios.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameter details. The description's parameter mention is inaccurate and adds negative value: 'x509Parameters' is not a real parameter, and it omits 'caType' and 'commonName' which are required. It does not clarify formats, dependencies, or relationships beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource ('new Private CA') while distinguishing root and sub CA variants. This aligns with the tool name and differentiates it from sibling PCA tools like delete, get, or issue operations.

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 purpose statement 'Create a new Private CA' implicitly conveys when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. No comparison to other PCA tools (e.g., delete, get, issue end cert) is provided, so usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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