ncloud_pca_update_ca

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

The description warns that setting DESTROYING will permanently delete the CA after 72 hours and is irreversible, which is useful behavioral context. However, this directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint: false. The description clearly signals a destructive action while the annotation denies it, creating a serious inconsistency.

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 three short sentences, warning first, then explaining the destructive behavior and irreversibility. Every sentence contributes essential information with 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 with only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the most critical aspect (DESTROYING consequences). However, the annotation contradiction undermines completeness by giving an agent contradictory safety signals, and the effects of DEACTIVATED status are not described.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds extra meaning for the status parameter by explaining the consequence of DESTROYING, which goes beyond the schema's enum listing. No additional info is provided for caTag, but the schema fully documents it.

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 verb ('Update'), resource ('CA status'), and the valid statuses (ACTIVE, DEACTIVATED, DESTROYING). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like ncloud_pca_delete_ca.

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 when to use this tool (to change a CA's status) and warns about DESTROYING, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., ncloud_pca_delete_ca) or state when NOT to use it. The guidance is helpful but not fully explicit.

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