ncloud_sourcebuild_update_project

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which match the description's update operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the obvious meaning of 'update', such as whether unspecified fields are preserved, what happens if the project does not exist, or any side effects.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Given the high complexity (39 parameters) and lack of output schema, this one-line description is not sufficient. It does not explain update semantics, such as whether the operation is a partial update or a full replacement, or what the returned value represents. The schema provides parameter details, but the description fails to give an overall operational context.

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 fully documents all 39 parameters. The tool description itself provides no parameter-level information, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema takes on the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and the specific resource ('existing SourceBuild project configuration'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create, delete, get, or list projects. The word 'existing' also implies a precondition that the project must already exist.

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, such as ncloud_sourcebuild_create_project or ncloud_sourcebuild_delete_project. It does not mention that projectId is required, how partial updates behave, or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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