ncloud_sourcedeploy_edit_scenario

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Edit deployment scenario settings' says nothing about side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what changes are applied. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but its brevity borders on under-specification. Still, it does not repeat schema information or include fluff.

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?

With 4 required parameters, a nested config object, and no output schema, the description must compensate by explaining what the configuration should contain and what the tool returns. It provides none of that. The tool edits scenario settings, but the nature of the settings, validation rules, or effects are unaddressed, making the description insufficient for a complex mutation tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics; the schema's descriptions like 'Updated scenario configuration' and 'ID of the deployment stage' are the only sources of meaning. The config object's structure is left as additionalProperties without explanation, but the schema already covers it minimally.

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 'Edit deployment scenario settings' is a verb+resource statement, but it is vague about what 'settings' entails and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like ncloud_sourcedeploy_edit_stage. It essentially restates the tool name with only the word 'settings' added, offering no scope or specifics.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_scenario, delete_scenario, or get_scenario. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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