ncloud_set_process_plugins

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by emphasizing that the entire list must be sent, which signals a full replacement operation with no partial-update capability. The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It could mention consequences of omitting existing plugins, but 'replace' plus 'sends the entire list' covers the core behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the key verb 'Replace', and includes just enough detail to clarify the important 'entire list' behavior. No filler or redundancy; every word 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 simple set-type operation with good annotations and a schema covering all parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It doesn't explicitly state that plugins not in the list will be removed, but 'Replace' implies that. It also omits any mention of prerequisites or post-conditions, but given the low complexity and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to act correctly.

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 all parameters, including configList as 'Full list of process names to monitor (replaces existing)'. The description's phrasing 'sends the entire list' merely restates what the schema already conveys. No additional semantic value is added for instanceNo or type beyond their schema descriptions.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('full set of process monitoring plugins for a server instance'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like add/remove. The parenthetical '(sends the entire list)' reinforces the full-replacement semantics, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to replace the entire set of process plugins rather than adding or removing individual ones. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., ncloud_add_process_plugin) or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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