ncloud_remove_resource_from_rules

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description only restates destructiveness with a warning emoji, adding no context about the scope of removal (e.g., whether it removes the target from all rules or a specific rule), side effects, or the requirement for confirm. It does not contradict annotations, but it also fails to add behavioral value beyond them.

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 sentence with a front-loaded destructive warning. It is appropriately sized, contains no redundant information, and clearly earns its place.

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 operation with no output schema, the description omits the scope of the removal (affects all rules?), the mandatory confirm parameter (only in schema), and any post-conditions or effect on remaining rules. Annotations cover safety but not operational completeness, leaving the agent with insufficient understanding of the tool's full impact.

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 the schema already documents prodKey, resourceId, and confirm. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, such as how prodKey relates to Cloud Insight or the exact format of resourceId. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('a specific monitoring target') within the domain ('Cloud Insight event rules'). It distinguishes from sibling removal tools by specifying the Cloud Insight context, though 'monitoring target' could be more explicit about what entity it refers to.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The destructive warning implies caution but does not help the agent decide between this and related tools like ncloud_delete_rule_group or ncloud_remove_* variants.

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