ncloud_pca_trim_ca

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (trimming expired certificates) but does not disclose whether this is destructive, irreversible, requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the action and purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the action and intent, but it lacks context about the effects of the operation, whether it modifies the CRL permanently, and how it relates to the specified CA. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 the caTag parameter described as 'CA tag value'. The description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 ('Trim') and resource ('CRL' - Certificate Revocation List), and clarifies the purpose of cleaning up the revocation list. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ca_crl (fetch) or rotate_crl (likely regenerating the CRL).

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 by stating the goal ('clean up the revocation list'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rotate_crl or update_crl_config. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned.

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