ncloud_resource_attach_group

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic action, such as whether existing memberships are preserved or error scenarios. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not enrich them either.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential action and scope efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It clarifies the 'add' semantics (not replace) and covers 'one or more' resources. Slight gap: it does not mention behavior when resources are already in the group, but this is minor for a basic attach operation.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (groupId and nrnList) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Add one or more resources to a resource group' clearly states the action (add), the object (resources), and the destination (resource group). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like detach_group and attach_tag by specifying the resource-group context.

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. With siblings like ncloud_resource_attach_tag and ncloud_resource_detach_group, the description offers no context for selection or exclusions. The purpose implies usage but does not explicitly state it.

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