ncloud_remove_file_plugin

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explicitly stating what is destroyed ('file monitoring plugin(s)') and requiring a confirmation flag ('Set confirm=true to execute'), which is crucial for safe usage. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence preceded by a warning symbol. Every word contributes: it names the action, target, and critical confirmation requirement. No wasted text or redundancy.

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 destructive removal tool, the description adequately covers the action, the lifecycle (confirmation required), and the target. The annotations supply safety context, and the schema covers parameter details. It does not explain return values, but that is not critical for this operation type.

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 all parameters already have descriptions (e.g., configList 'File paths to remove', confirm 'Must be true to actually execute'). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action ('Remove') and resource ('file monitoring plugin(s)') with target ('server instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list/get/add/set file plugins. The verb+resource structure leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list/add/set file plugins). It provides the important safety instruction 'Set confirm=true to execute' but that is an invocation detail, not a selection guideline. Usage context is implied by the name and destructive warning.

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