ncloud_remove_nas_volume_access_control

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns with '⚠️ Destructive' and explicitly states the confirmation requirement ('Set confirm=true to execute'), which is critical for safe usage. This adds meaningful transparency about the destructive nature and the required safety mechanism.

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 that conveys the destructive nature, the specific operation, and the required confirmation, all without wasted words. It is exceptionally concise while retaining all essential 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 straightforward destructive operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the NFS context, and the confirm safety gate. It does not elaborate on the post-removal state (e.g., that listed server instances lose access), but this is largely implied by the tool's purpose and the parameter list. The description is mostly complete for its complexity level.

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%, so all parameters (confirm, nasVolumeInstanceNo, serverInstanceNoList) are already well-documented in the schema. The description repeats the confirm semantics but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format expectations or relationships between parameters. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Remove server instance access control from a NAS volume (NFS protocol).' This uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions NFS protocol, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add/set access control. The tool's name further reinforces this purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when needing to remove server instance access control from a NAS volume) and includes the critical usage requirement 'Set confirm=true to execute.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and the confirmation gate is explicitly stated.

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