ncloud_ses_run_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action 'Run data import' without revealing side effects, such as whether existing data is overwritten, if the operation is asynchronous, or if the index must already exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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 of 12 words that front-loads the key action and resources. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a run/mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It does not mention how to check import status, whether the operation is asynchronous, expected response, or any prerequisites. Given the 4 required parameters and the potential impact on the cluster, the description is far from complete.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters (e.g., 'Cluster instance number', 'Object Storage bucket name'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking the parameters to the source (Object Storage) and destination (SES cluster), but it does not enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Run data import') with a specific source ('Object Storage') and destination ('Search Engine Service cluster'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_import_history and stop_import by naming the operation. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'data import' entails, so it stops short of full specificity.

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 description implies its purpose but does not contextualize it within the import workflow or contrast with related tools like ncloud_ses_get_import_history or ncloud_ses_stop_import.

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