ncloud_set_vpc_peering_description

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

Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already communicate the safety profile. The description aligns with these, but adds little extra context—it does not explain that the operation overwrites the existing description or note any state requirements for the peering instance. No contradiction with annotations.

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 fluff. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 update operation with idempotent and non-destructive annotations, the description is adequately complete. It does not need to explain return values (no output schema). A slightly more detailed note about overwriting behavior or prerequisites would push it to 5, but the current level is sufficient for straightforward use.

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 both parameters ('vpcPeeringInstanceNo' and 'vpcPeeringDescription') already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level information, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Set or update') and identifies the resource ('description of a VPC Peering instance'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_vpc_peering, delete_vpc_peering, and accept_reject_vpc_peering.

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 use case is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., the peering instance must exist). The description lacks explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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