ncloud_put_object_acl

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

Annotations are empty, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set' without revealing side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or that the existing ACL will be overwritten. No additional behavioral context is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with complete parameter documentation, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks contextual details such as when to choose this over related tools, any behavioral caveats, or prerequisites (e.g., object existence), and there are no annotations or output schema to supplement.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The only semantic addition is 'using a canned ACL', which is already reflected in the 'acl' property's enum and description, providing no net new value 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 clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('access control list (ACL) of an object in Object Storage'), and the method ('using a canned ACL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_put_bucket_acl by explicitly mentioning 'object'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or point to related tools such as ncloud_get_object_acl or ncloud_put_bucket_acl for bucket-level ACL operations.

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