ncloud_remove_placement_group_server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces the destructive nature with a warning emoji and adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation will not execute unless confirm=true is set. It does not contradict annotations and effectively communicates the safety gate.

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 two short sentences: a warning label plus the core action and the mandatory confirmation instruction. It is front-loaded with '⚠️ Destructive', every sentence earns its place, and there is no extraneous text.

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 destructive mutation with only three parameters, no output schema, and sufficient annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the operation does, that it is destructive, and the confirm gate. It does not explain side effects or mention the inverse operation, but given the schema and annotations, the description is adequately complete for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 each parameter documented (confirm requires true, placementGroupNo is the group number, serverInstanceNo is the server to remove). The description itself only restates the confirm requirement ('Set confirm=true'), which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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+resource: 'Remove a server instance from a placement group.' It clearly identifies the exact operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_add_placement_group_server (adds) and ncloud_delete_placement_group (deletes the entire group).

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 clearly indicates the use case ('Remove a server instance from a placement group') and provides a crucial usage requirement ('Set confirm=true to execute'). It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. The safety-critical confirmation instruction is strong guidance.

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