ncloud_pca_sign_end_csr

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds one behavioral detail: 'The existing CA certificate is returned,' which is not present in annotations or schema. However, it does not clarify whether the signed certificate itself is also returned, nor any side effects (e.g., persistence). Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value: the verb, the target (CSR), the result (end-entity certificate), and the return value. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers the core purpose and one return value. However, it is incomplete regarding the full response: it says 'The existing CA certificate is returned' but does not explicitly state whether the newly signed end-entity certificate is also returned or in what format. Given no output schema, this leaves ambiguity.

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 both parameters: caTag ('CA tag value of the signing CA') and csrPem ('CSR in PEM format'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Sign a provided CSR') and the purpose ('to issue a new end-entity certificate'). It also mentions the return value, which helps distinguish it from similar tools like ncloud_pca_sign_sub_csr (which signs a sub-CA CSR) and ncloud_pca_issue_end_cert. The verb+resource+result are specific.

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: use this when you have a CSR to sign for an end-entity certificate. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ncloud_pca_sign_sub_csr or ncloud_pca_issue_end_cert, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. The guidance is purely implied by the tool's purpose.

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